When sociologist E. Franklin Frazier published Black Bourgeoisie in 1957 his purpose was to expose the group's "obsession with the struggle for status." Their quest for status was doomed, he surmised, because of the thin economic ground on which the black bourgeoisie stood. Frazier dismissed this black pseudo–middle class as "subsist[ing] off the crumbs of philanthropy, the salaries of public servants, and what could be squeezed from the meager earnings of Negro workers." Yet from this pitiable table of wealth, the black bourgeoisie gave the appearances of eating like kings. They created, in Frazier's words, a "world of make-believe" in which the trappings of society life mattered more than being well-read or politically aware.
Frazier argues that in the world of politics middle-class blacks "serve two masters" and have a rigid "middle-class outlook." The two masters are the black constituency they must lead and the "propertied classes in the white community" they must serve. "In his role as leader," Frazier writes, "the Negro politician attempts to accommodate the demands of the Negro masses to his personal interests which are tied up with the [white] political machines." In the end, he concludes, the black bourgeoisie frequently takes on the anti-egalitarian interests of the white elites with whom it is allied.
Furthermore, even when black middle-class leaders are not playing the middleman (my term) between their two masters, they promote their own class-inflected agenda, sometimes disregarding the negative impact it may have on another group of African Americans. Frazier labels this phenomenon-when "middle-class Negroes oppose the economic and social welfare of Negroes because of their own interests"-black middle-class "aggression."
Frazier argues that in the world of politics middle-class blacks "serve two masters" and have a rigid "middle-class outlook." The two masters are the black constituency they must lead and the "propertied classes in the white community" they must serve. "In his role as leader," Frazier writes, "the Negro politician attempts to accommodate the demands of the Negro masses to his personal interests which are tied up with the [white] political machines." In the end, he concludes, the black bourgeoisie frequently takes on the anti-egalitarian interests of the white elites with whom it is allied.
Furthermore, even when black middle-class leaders are not playing the middleman (my term) between their two masters, they promote their own class-inflected agenda, sometimes disregarding the negative impact it may have on another group of African Americans. Frazier labels this phenomenon-when "middle-class Negroes oppose the economic and social welfare of Negroes because of their own interests"-black middle-class "aggression."
too smart for TLR this is more like the Root but let’s see how this goes 
