You, and the people you mention, are not "white adjacent." As a South Asian, you may be considered "not black" and more accepted by whites. "White-adjacent" people are those who are light enough, whatever their ethnicity, who are able, and willing, to be incorporated into whiteness, if it is in the interests of white people to do so. Unfortunately, "whiteness" is such an attractive concept, that many white-adjacent people are happy to be considered for the "white camp."

Your explanation for "black infighting" is vastly oversimplified. A move to the suburbs and attendance at more privileged institutions did not necessarily mean that black families sought "acceptance," and exactly what does "acceptance" mean? It's been my experience that those people may be more comfortable socially with white people, but greater proximity to white people exposes us to even more prejudice. We definitely do not overlook racism, as are so often is subjects. Nor do we forsake the customs of our past unless they prove to be practices which result from the slights of racism and are harmful. If anything, the better educated we are, the more we respect the ancestors and forward anti-racist practices. It's the scholars among us who forward a powerful black agenda.

People like Owens, Thomas, and Scott are not puppets because they have bought into "white adjacency." They find more comfort and satisfaction in being mascots, for whatever reason. They are, indeed, doing us much harm, and we need to root them out in everyway possible, most especially, continuing to expose their hypocrisy.