Printer Friendly

Between scorn and longing: Frazier's 'Black Bourgeoisie.' (E. Franklin Frazier)(Rethinking Race)


E. FRANKLIN FRAZIER (1894--1962) IS GENERALLY REMEMBERED FOR TWO LEGAcies, both the subject of considerable controversy. First, his work on the African American family is praised by his supporters for its historical scope and empirical rigor, while his detractors accuse Frazier of initiating the "pathological" critique of the matriarchal household and laying the groundwork for the notorious Moynihan Report. Second, he is remembered, either fondly or irritably, as the scurrilous polemicist who cavalierly scribbled Black Bourgeoisie while enjoying gourmet lunches in Parisian bistros in the early 1950s.

When Black Bourgeoisie was finally published in the United States in 1957, two years after the French edition, Frazier become an instant celebrity who was in demand as a speaker and made good copy in the African American press. The American Sociological Association presented him with the MacIver Award, which he found amusing because he regarded the book as more of a debunking satire than serious scholarship. Nevertheless, he enjoyed the limelight during his last years and willingly made the rounds of sorority clubs, Negro associations, academic groups, and charity banquets where he "flung critical and witty barbs at middle class colored Americans" in the audience.(1) Undergraduates crowded into his clases at Howard to hear him berate them for aspiring to enter a world of delusions and "nothingness."(2) And after his death in 1962, newly radicalized students discovered Frazier and used Black Bourgeoisie as ammunition against old guards everywhere.

Frazier's work on the African American middle class is generally regarded as peripheral to his serious scholarship on race relations and the African American family. "Impressionistic" or "Menckenesque burlesque" are typical characterizations of Black Bourgeoisie.(3) The issues raised in Frazier's 1955 book, however, were both a political concern and object of serious study throughout his life, from his first polemic in 1918 -- in which he rebuked the "priestly class" for "turning nations into stone and the past into sacredness" (Frazier, 1918)--to his last essay in 1962 -- in which he berated black intellectuals for their "abject conformity in thinking" (Frazier, 1962). Even after his death, Frazier could still be heard expressing the same message, as disgruntled as ever with the "petty tyrants in the Negro churches" and "their counterparts in practically all other Negro organizations."(4)

Frazier's own class history gave him particular insights into the dilemmas of the black bourgeoisie. His father, a self-taught bank messenger who died when his son was only 10 years old, left Frazier with a fierce thirst for knowledge and upward mobility. While the young Edward decided quite early that he was an atheist with an unshakable contempt for organized religion, he inherited his father's commitment to the Protestant Ethic. At college, for example, he pursued a rigorous program of self-improvement. Coming from "a family that did not have a literary tradition," Frazier decided to take four years of English courses in college and "by writing a composition every day, I learned to write" (Frazier, 1961). It was this kind of initiative and drive that enabled Frazier to climb out of the ghetto, yet it was not enough to enable him to succeed in the meritocratic world of the white professional middle classes. For all his accomplishments -- the first African-American president of the American Sociological Association (1948), author of the first serious textbook on The Negro in the United States (1949), consultant to the United Nations -- he was never offered a tenure-track job in a predominantly white university and the praise he received from his professional peers for his contributions as a Negro social scientist was intentionally backhanded.

Frazier certainly knew firsthand the world of the black bourgeoisie. As a young man he had learned a great deal about middle-class customs and foibles from his in-laws, pillars of religious respectability in North Carolina, and later he was sharply observant of his wife's social set in Washington, D.C. As somebody who taught in every kind of African-American school and college, he was also well attuned to the nuances of segregated professionalism. He even once boasted that he wrote so truthfully about his subject matter because "I am a black bourgeois,"(5) but it is more likely that his powerful insights derived not so much from his membership in, but rather from his marginality to, a stratum that served as both a refuge and a prison.

Like the "scholarship boys" in the English working class of the 1950s, captured so poignantly by Richard Hoggart (1957: 291--304), Frazier wavered between "scorn and longing." On the one hand, he was "equipped for hurdle-jumping" and had "been trained like a circus-horse, for scholarship winning." On the other hand, he was "at the friction-point of two cultures," uprooted from a sense of moorings, "gnawed by self-doubt," still the odd man out whose ability was both "a mark of pride and almost a brand."

Frazier's lifetime work on the middle class was complex and contradictory, never fixed or simple minded. he is, of course, best remembered for Black Bourgeoisie, which was written late in his life and at a time of growing cynicism and despair. By this time, however, his views had gone through various permutations and transformations.

A Social Conception of Wealth

In the 1920s, Frazier's perspective on the black bourgeoisie was extraordinary eclectic, a mixture of ideas that he gleaned from W.E.B. Du Bois, Booker T. Washington, and the social-democratic socialism of the Messenger crowd. From Du Bois, Frazier borrowed the principle that the "Talented Tenth" had a moral and social responsibility to provide both cultural and political-economic leadership in African American communities. While an undergraduate at Howard (1912--1916), Frazier heard Du Bois lecture about contemporary issues and he listened carefully when the leader of the New Negro movement appealed to students' idealism, urging them to pursue careers that would give them the joy of accomplishment and social responsibility, rather than the "rolling up of wealth" (Howard University Journal, April 17, 1914: 2--3).

After he left Howard, Frazier was impressed with such organizations as the Neighborhood Union in Atlanta and the Fort Valley High and Industrial School in Georgia, where teachers, social workers, and ministers worked hard to build indigenous community institutions.(6) In this sense at least, he shared Booker T. Washington's prescription for self-reliance. In 1921 to 1922, Frazier traveled to Denmark to study the farm cooperatives and rural schools that, a decade earlier, had demonstrated to Washington "that it pays to educate the man farthest down" (Washington, 1912: 340). Frazier was similarly impressed with the cooperative movement in Denmark and thought that Southern blacks could learn from an economic system that combined the best of individual thrift and collective methods of production and distribution (Frazier, 1923b: 479--484). Frazier was an avid reader of the Messenger, which at that time also was urging the beleaguered black petty bourgeoisie to embrace a cooperative system of economics.(7)

When Frazier went to teach social work in Atlanta in 1922 after his return from Denmark, he was hopeful that credit unions, cooperative marketing, and other forms of collective enterprise would develop in the South. "A great step towards economic emancipation," he wrote in his first article for Crisis (1923c: 228--229), "could be achieved through the development of cooperative enterprises in many centers of Negro population." Such a program, he argued, offered "safe investment opportunities for small quantities of capital" and were "in harmony with the present tendency towards the democratization of wealth. It is needless for us to go through the cruder stages of individualistic enterprise before we reach a social conception of the nature of wealth" (Frazier, 1924a: 293--297). Frazier hoped that black businesses would strive toward "true industrial democracy" and facilitate a "wide distribution of the economic surplus of the group" (Frazier, 1924b: 508).

Frazier's brief experience with cooperatives in Denmark guided his political and economic views for several years. In 1925, he was still trying to convince an old friend that cooperatives were the "best means" to "amass capital through the mobilization of small amounts."(8) By 1928, however, he recognized that with the failure of "black radicals" to go south and teach "landless peasants any type of self-help," the cooperative movement was now a utopian vision, promising nothing but false hopes.(9) A few years later when Du Bois flirted with a cooperative program, Frazier now dismissed the idea for its romanticism and economic stupidity. "What could be more fantastic," he asked in 1935, than Du Bois' "program for a separate non-profit economy within American capitalism?" (Frazier, 1935a: 13). This disenchantment with the possibility of democratically controlled economic enterprises led Frazier to a much more realistic and pessimistic assessment of African American entrepreneurs.

La Bourgeoisie Noire

Frazier's critique of the black bourgeoisie was alluded to in various articles during the 1920s, hinted at in his essay for Alain Locke's The New Negro, and fully elaborated for the first time in 1928 in an article written for Modern Quarterly. As with his initial optimism about cooperatives, so Frazier hoped that black entrepreneurs would do their part to raise "the general economic level of our group" rather than aspire to "peaks of affluence to dazzle the mob" (Frazier, 1924a: 293--297). Based on his apparent enthusiasm for the potentiality of African American business, Alain Locke sought him out to contribute an essay to The New Negro about the "real Negro economic start" that was underway in Durham, North Carolina.(10)

In the famous Durham article, Frazier attempts to straddle the fence. At first reading, it is a purely descriptive and appreciative discussion of how the "Negro is at last developing a middle class" and acquiring the "spirit of modern enterprise" in banking and insurance. A close reading, however, reveals nuances of irony and parody submerged within its uncritical ambience. The black bourgeoisie, noted Frazier, has:

the same outlook on life as the middle class everywhere.... White men

have recognized these men as the supporters of property rights. They

know these men would no more vote for Debs than they. Yet, there are

still Jim Crow cars in North Carolina, and the Negro is denied civil and

political rights (Frazier, 1925b: 333--340).

These subversive subtexts, however, constituted a fraction of the overall article, which, like the total contents of The New Negro, were designed, in Locke's words, to "celebrate the attainment of a significant and satisfying new phase of group development, and with it a spiritual Coming of Age" (Ibid.: 16). Perhaps Frazier decided to be diplomatic and tactful for once; perhaps he settled for a bland neutrality because it was flattering to be included in Locke's coterie. Whatever Frazier's motivation, the Durham article, though not explicitly misrepresenting his views, did not accurately represent them.

In the late 1920s, Frazier tried to sort out his ambivalence about the cultural renaissance in African American, urban centers. On the one hand, he participated in and was recognized as a leader of the New Negro movement. On the other, he regarded its development with skepticism and mistrust. Even when he was at his most optimistic about the progressive and social role that black-owned businesses could play in local communities, he always had his doubts and was on the lookout for betrayal. In the early 1920s, for example, Frazier endorsed the Messenger's views about the need for self-defense and meeting white violence with black violence -- what he described as a "positive moral force" -- and was very critical of "those Negro leaders who through cowardice and for favors deny that the Negro desires the same treatment as other men." He hated "this sort of self-abasement" posturing as "Christian humility."(11) To make his point, he recalled the example of a white philanthropist who donated large sums of money for black education in the South. All went well until she attended a meeting where she met "Negroes as cultured and as intelligent as white people!" She left, "guilty and dismayed," determined never to support this cause again. "Her attitude towards Negroes," concluded Frazier (1924d: 76), "was primarily that of a kindly lady who has sponsored a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, but naturally resents rescued dogs, for example, assuming roles reserved for homo sapiens."

Looking for an opportunity to correct the favorable impressions of the New Negro that might have been communicated by his Durham article, Frazier seized his chance when V.F. Calverton, editor of the leftist Modern Quarterly, asked him to submit "an article on the harmful influence of bourgeois psychology on the Negro movement, or something of the sort."(12) Some two weeks later, Frazier completed his critique of La Bourgeoisie Noire, titled in French, suggests Harold Cruse (1967: 154), "no doubt to camouflage his Negro self-criticism." Frazier may have shown some prudence in his choice of title, but the contents were quite candid. Gone was the oblique innuendo of the Durham piece.

There are essentially two themes in La Bourgeoisie Noire. First, Frazier attempted to explain why "the Negro, the man farthest down in the economic as well as social scale, steadily refuses to ally himself with radical groups in America." To do this, he contested the widely held notion that the African American community was monolithic and homogeneous, pointing out that it was "highly differentiated" and that industrial workers, who were more likely to have a revolutionary consciousness, constituted only a small percentage of black workers. Second -- and here Frazier propels himself into the controversy that would last a lifetime -- he analyzed the conservative role played by the new, rising middle class and its cultural spokesperson, the New Negro, in ensuring that "bourgeois ideals are implanted in the Negro's mind." He sadly noted the demise of the postwar black radical movement, typified by the Messenger, which had degenerated from an "organ of the struggling masses" to a "mouthpiece of Negro capitalists."

Frazier was critical of the New Negro movement, not because of its nationalism, but because under the encouragement of its white patrons, it had retreated into a narrow and depoliticized concept of culture. Black cultural workers were willing to settle for "Negro in Art Week" in return for agreeing "not to compete with the white man either politically or economically." The New Negro movement, concluded Frazier, "looks askance at the new rising class of black capitalism while it basks in the sun of white capitalism." Meanwhile, black businessmen were by now only interested in conspicuous consumption and a "society of equals" was the last thing on their minds (Frazier, 1928a).

In the same way that Frazier brought a class analysis to bear on cultural issues, so he also refused to accept a view of African American communities as uniform, passive victims of white racism. What made Frazier's approach controversial and subversive was his exploration of the dynamics of collusion and collaboration, notably the opportunism of "Negro leaders who through cowardice and for favors deny that the Negro desires the same treatment as other men."(13) This was hardly a popular endeavor given the prevailing efforts of organizations like the NAACP and NUL to focus on how all blacks were equally oppressed by racism. To Frazier (1949: 91), many African American leaders were the descendants of the "waiting men" who betrayed Denmark Vesey. From early on in the 1920s, he had little faith in the new urban middle class who, on the basis of "a little education or turn of fortune," all too readily turned their backs on the "mass of Negroes" and was eager to "damn the black, greasy, boisterous Negro peasant in one breath and boast of their pride in Negro ancestry in the next" (Frazier, 1928b). Similarly, he had little patience for interracial ambassadors, well-meaning black and white liberals who encouraged cooperation without challenging the roots of segregation. To the New Negro crowd, in the words of historian David Lewis (1989: 115), "there was nothing wrong with American society that interracial elitism could not cure." Frazier, however, had nothing but contempt for any program that hinted of paternalism or noblesse oblige. "The Negro does not want love. He wants justice" (Frazier, 1924c).

Not surprisingly, Frazier's critique of academic do-gooders and civil-rights careerists did not endear him to most of his professional colleagues. Yet he also came under occasional criticism from leftists. For example, as Oliver Cox (1970: 15--31) correctly pointed out, Frazier's class analysis was theoretically imprecise and stretched almost beyond recognition Marxist conceptions of productive and economic relations. Frazier's muddled middle class included skilled workers and foremen, service and clerical workers, as well as professionals and petty entrepreneurs. Frazier took this kind of criticism seriously. "The term 'middle class' as used here," he wrote in his 1949 textbook, "refers to the class having an intermediate status between the upper and lower classes in the Negro community. Only a relatively small upper layer of this class is 'middle class' in the general American meaning of the term" (Frazier, 1949: 301). Even though Frazier's framework focused on political and cultural factors, his overall analysis suffered from a lack of economic sophistication. The black bourgeoisie was of course in reality a petit bourgeoisie, but Frazier's writings told us very little about the relations of this stratum to the grand bourgeoisie or the corporate economy. This was a weakness that Frazier himself recognized and tried to correct in his last major work, Race and Culture Contacts in the Modern World (1957).

Embittered Critique

Frazier's assessment of the black bourgeoisie in 1928 formed the basis of his later writings on this topic; his views hardly changed in 30 years. He elaborated his critique, deepened his analysis, and became more vitriolic in the 1950s, but at the core was the argument he formulated in the 1920s. Through the 1930s, he sustained his fierce attack on African American leadership, accusing Du Bois of aspiring to be "king" of the "Black Ghetto" and exposing James Weldon Johnson and other civil-rights leaders for their opportunism and unwillingness to "risk their own security" (Frazier, 1935a: 11--13; 1935b: 129--131). As for black businessmen, they dreamed of a "Black Utopia where the black middle class could exploit the black workers without white competition" (1938: 497).

After World War II, Frazier found his critique confirmed by the growth of an urban petty bourgeoisie, as lawyers, realtors, and shop owners took their place alongside the teachers and preachers who had traditionally wielded local power within black communities. This stratum, argued Frazier (1947: 75--75, 99--100), had quickly developed "vested interests" in the "system of segregation," from which they derived the "exclusive enjoyment and material rewards." His 1949 textbook, bolstered by Abram Harris' The Negro as Capitalist and other recent studies, reiterated his critique of the "marginal position of Negro enterprises" and "their insignificant role in the economy of the nation" (Frazier, 1949: 409, 412).

In the last years of his life, Frazier returned to the issues that had preoccupied him during the 1920s. The publication of Black Bourgeoisie, first in France in 1955 and then in the United States in 1957, plus the resurgence of the Civil Rights Movement in the South, reawakened his interest. The book contained nothing new in the way of analysis or interpretation, though its style was even more acerbic and polemical than before. Here was the familiar history of stratification within black communities, the expose of the "myth of Negro business" -- sustained, noted Frazier with a new turn of phrase, by "Negro businessmen [who] can best be described as 'lumpen-bourgeoisie'"--and a savage demystification of the "world of make-believe into which the black bourgeoisie has sought an escape from its inferiority and frustrations in American society" (Frazier, 1965: 173, 237).

The next notable shift in Frazier's analysis of the black bourgeoisie occurred when he came into contact with Third World intellectuals and leftists during his two years (1951--1953) in Paris as chief of the Division of Applied Social Sciences in UNESCO. As a result of this exposure to global issues, he began to compare the African American middle class with "colored middlemen" and "compradors" around the world. He was struck by the similarities between the black bourgeoisie back home, "increasingly bewildered and frustrated in the white man's world," and the new native bourgeoisie of decolonized nations, who, in the words of one commentator, were "like derelicts, frantically seeking some foothold of security for body and mind." Frazier relearned the important lesson that it was not inevitable that the middle classes play a conservative and coopted role. A choice had to be made, sides had to be taken. Frazier pointed to the positive example of Kwame Nkrumah, future president of Ghana, who expressed "a deep understanding and sympathy for the aspirations of the masses of Africans [and] wanted to make the nationalistic movement a mass movement" (Frazier, 1957: 293, 295, 300).

Increasingly, Frazier was impressed by nationalism in Africa and was much more hopeful about its revolutionary potential than about the potential of its counterpart in the United States. Though he was encouraged by the Civil Rights Movement stirring in the South and welcomed the new "militant spirit" of college students (Frazier, 1956: 7--8), he continued to argue that African American leadership "has no sense of responsibility to the Negro masses and exploits them whenever an opportunity offers itself" (Frazier, 1955: 26--32). He warned the new African nations to look out for "American Negroes [who] may go to Africa as advisers and specialists" because "they will go as Americans representing American interests, not African interests." When asked in 1959 by Presence Africaine, "What can the American Negro contribute to the social development of Africa?" his embittered response was, "Very little" (Frazier, 1959: 263--278).

A few weeks before he died in 1962, Frazier's last essay was published in Negro Digest. In "The Failure of the Negro Intellectual," he sounded a familiar theme, condemning his colleagues for failing "to dig down into the experience of the Negro and provide the soul of a people." Do not "run from Du Bois and Paul Robeson," he pleaded (Frazier, 1962: 34--36). Despite his political differences with Du Bois and Robeson over the years -- whether it was Du Bois' call to "close ranks" during World War I or Robeson's uncritical defense of the Communist Party -- they were heroic figures to Frazier because they risked their own personal security, willingly stood up to all kinds of establishments, and then held their ground, no matter how unpopular. Ideology aside, Frazier admired this kind of intransigence of principle and personal stubbornness. Even after Du Bois was hounded by McCarthyist witch-hunts in the 1950s and abandoned by most liberals, black and white, Frazier refused to back down from his public support of the "man who raised the big moral questions having to do with racism, exploitation, and imperialism."(14)

During Frazier's last decade, he became quite despondent about the prospects for equality in the United States. His previous polemics and social criticism had generally included proposals or counterproposals. Now they became one-sided, mostly critique with little program, and there was a predominant edge of cynicism to the "enfant terrible," as he once liked to call himself. From his undergraduate days at Howard through the 1930s, Frazier's commitment had been sustained and shaped by social movements and innovative radical politics that attempted to unite struggles for economic and social justice. Though he always operated on the fringe of organizations and protected his ideological independence, he was deeply involved in the political culture of the civil rights, socialist, and nationalist movements. As these movements collapsed after World War II and he searched for a new identification in the context of global movements, Frazier's political commitments within the United States became sporadic and more vicarious, and Frazier became increasingly disillusioned with the possibility that such commitments by themselves could be effective. During the 1950s, he had become alienated from both a defensive Left and an increasingly anticommunist and legalistic NAACP. He and many of the people he admired, especially Robeson and Du Bois, were ostracized by the overwhelming majority of the black bourgeoisie who succumbed to the pressures of McCarthyism. The "waiting men" had returned to close the circle of betrayal.

Unfortunately, his subjectivity got the better of him in his last years as he became more and more estranged from political movements in the United States. His critiques of the black bourgeoisie sounded increasingly dogmatic because he continued to apply an analysis that was well grounded prior to World War II, but did not take into account changing conditions in the 1950s. For example, his last book, The Negro Church in America, published posthumously in this country, stressed the "stifling domination" that religious leaders exercised over African American communities. It was an old and plausible argument that he made for several years, quite consistent with his overall assessment of the middle class. In the mid--1950s, when he was writing this book, however, sectors of the Negro church had begun to play a prominent and militant role in the Civil Rights Movement. His failure to address these contradictions and possibilities -- as he did when examining political movements in Africa and Asia in Race and Culture Contacts in the Modern World -- made Frazier's analysis rigid and revealed how much he had become out of touch with the new activism.


An historical journey through Frazier's writings on the black bourgeoisie suggests a much more complex and contradictory analysis than that commonly associated with the fiery and disillusioned dogmatist of the late 1950s. Overall, we have much to appreciate and reconsider in his work. At a time when African Americans were being reduced to homogeneous stereotypes -- "saints" or "stones," to use his phrase -- he fought to document the diversity and complexity of black families, communities, and politics. However economically ingenuous, he recognized the importance of class analysis and the political contradictions raised by middle-class leadership of mass movements. He continually urged his peers who, like himself, had been both smart and lucky enough to climb out of misery, always to remember their cultural roots and their social obligations. Do not be "seduced by dreams of final assimilation," he told them (Frazier, 1962: 26--36). With African American businesses as marginal to the corporate economy as they were 30 years ago, with the black middle class still on the periphery of national political power, and with the New Right recruiting its first significant cadre of black neoconservatives, Frazier's insights seem as fresh and heretical as ever.


(1.)For a typical account of a Frazier speech to a black sorority luncheon, see Afro-American (August 26, 1958).

(2.)"The black bourgeoisie suffers from 'nothingness' because when Negroes attain middle-class status, their lives generally lose both content and significance" See E. Franklin Frazier (hereafter cited as Frazier) (1965: 238).

(3.)Interviews with G. Franklin Edwards and Michael Winston; see, also, Edwards (1968: xviii).

(4.)See Frazier (1966: 86). This book was first published in the U.S. in 1964.

(5.)Quoted by Davis (1962: 435).

(6.)See, for example, Frazier (1923a: 437--442; 1925a: 459--464).

(7.)See, for example, Randolph (1922: 220--221).

(8.)Letter from Frazier to "Dock" Steward, January 3, 1925 (Frazier Papers, Howard University).

(9.)See, for example, Frazier (1928a: 82--83).

(10.)Letter from Locke to Frazier, c. 1925 (Frazier Papers: Howard University).

(11.)See Frazier (1924c: 213--214); Frazier quoted in "Opinion of W.E.B. Du Bois," Crisis (June, 1924): 58--59.

(12.)Letter from Eileen Hood to Frazier, February 29, 1928 (Frazier Papers: Howard University).

(13.)Frazier quoted in "Opinion of W.E.B. Du Bois," Crisis (June, 1924: 59).

(14.)Interview with Marie Brown Frazier. Du Bois left the country in disgust and lived the last years of his life in Ghana. Frazier, out of respect for Du Bois and support for Kwame Nkrumah, bequeathed his library to the University of Ghana.


Cox, Oliver 1970 "Introduction" to Nathan Hare, The Black Anglo-Saxons. New York: Collier Books: 15--31.

Cruse, Harold 1967 The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual. New York: William Morrow: 154.

Davis, Arthur 1962 "E. Franklin Frazier (1894--1962): A Profile." The Journal of Negro Education (Fall).

Edwards, G. Franklin (ed.) 1968 E. Franklin Frazier on Race Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frazier, E. Franklin 1966 The Negro Church in America. New York: Schocken Books. 1965 Black Bourgeoisie. New York: Free Press. 1962 "The Failure of the Negro Intellectual." Negro Digest (February): 31. 1961 "The Role of the Social Scientist in the Negro College." Robert Martin (ed.), The Civil War in Perspective: Papers Contributed to the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Division of Social Sciences. Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press: 11--12. 1959 "What Can the American Negro Contribute to the Social Development of Africa?" John Davis (ed.), Africa: Seen by American Negroes. Paris: Presence Africaine: 263--278. 1957 Race and Culture Contacts in the Modern World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf: 293, 295, 300. 1956 "The New Negro." The Nation (July 7): 7--8. 1955 "The New Negro Middle Class." In The Negro Thirty Years Afterward. Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press: 26--32. 1949 The Negro in the United States. New York: Macmillan: 91. 1947 "Human, All Too Human: The Negro's Vested Interest in Segregation." Survey Graphic (January): 74--75, 99--100. 1938 "Some Effects of the Depression on the Negro in Northern Cities." Science and Society (Fall): 497. 1935a "The Du Bois Program in the Present Crisis." Race (Winter): 13. 1935b "Quo Vadis?" Journal of Negro Education (January): 129--131. 1928a "La Bourgeoisie Noire." Modern Quarterly (November). 1928b "The Negro's Struggle to Find His Soul." (Unpublished essay): 7--8. 1925a "A Community School." Southern Workman (October). 1925b "Durham: Capital of the Black Middle Class." Alain Locke (ed.), The New Negro. New York: A. & C. Boni: 333--340. 1924a "Some Aspects of Negro Business." Opportunity (October): 293--297. 1924b "Cooperatives: The Next Step in the Negro's Business Development." Southern Workman (November): 508. 1924c "The Negro and Non-resistance." Crisis (March). 1924d "A Note on Negro Education." Opportunity (March): 76. 1923a "Neighborhood Union in Atlanta." Southern Workman (September). 1923b "The Cooperative Movement in Denmark." Southern Workman (October): 479--484. 1923c "Cooperation and the Negro." Crisis (March): 228--229. 1918 God and War. Unpublished pamphlet: 4.

Hoggart, Richard 1984 The Uses of Literacy. London: Penguin Books. Originally published 1957: 291--304.

Lewis, David L. 1989 When Harlem Was in Vogue. New York: Oxford University Press: 115.

Randolph, A. Philip 1922 "The Crisis in Negro Business." Messenger (March).

Washington, Booker T. 1912 The Man Farthest Down: A Record of Observation and Study in Europe. New York: Doubleday: 340.
COPYRIGHT 1993 Crime and Social Justice Associates
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Platt, Anthony M.
Publication:Social Justice
Article Type:Biography
Date:Mar 22, 1993
Previous Article:Asian Americans and racial politics: a postmodern paradox.
Next Article:"Flotsam on the sea of humanity": a view from the bench on class, race, and gender.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters