I think I feel pretty much the same when people start making proclamations about how I feel guilty or otherwise have some lack of inner peace over racism, with the only evidence being that I'm white.

 I don't think you have that problem here.

but all he has presented indicates that feeling of shame is his alone.

And how do we know that?  Anything he said?  Not. 

We know he feels that way from his own words, and presented no evidence that anyone other than himself feels that way. That's all I said. You are disagreeing with that?

This is P6's answer to the question "what would it take for me to say that kind of thing?".  It's about  P6, not about Shelby Steele.

Attribute nothing to me. You are ALWAYS wrong.

Instead you should find something in Steele's rant that contradicts the conclusion I've drawn from his words.

Instead you should find something in Steele's rant that contradicts the conclusion I've drawn from his words

If Steele suffers from a personal feeling of inferiority, he surely never said so in the essay under discussion (it's easy to check).  He observed black people, a large, involuntary group, to so suffer.  He himself claims to have a solution for this afliction (again, easy to check).

Near as I can see, Steele observes you to feel inferior presenting no evidence beyond a vague plausibility, and you observe Steele to feel inferior presenting no evidence beyond a vague plausibility.

Negative analyses of other people based on vague plausibility make for gulfs, and are a barrier to progress toward any sensible form of success.  Further, they're seldom correct.

If Steele suffers from a personal feeling of inferiority, he surely never said so in the essay under discussion (it's easy to check).

True.

So who was he talking about when reviewing his own feelings?

You're being an ass again. And that's not a subjective statement either.

And understand, even if I chose not to mention the neuroses driving Mr. Steele, as you note his analysis is wrong. Once that's established, little else matters because we will ignore his ass.

If you want to represent his argument, find some self-hating Black people. Do not suggest you've found any here.

http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/archives/004822.html

Shelby Steele impressed me once. A long time ago basically with his one article in Harper's "The Content of our Character" - long before the book was published. Since then, not. I haven't reviewed his work and probably won't. Interestingly enough, I dismissed him much in the same way some liberals have attempted to dismiss me, through a rationale that said he had 'problems' with being black. Then again, I was a Progressive myself at the time, and I had not yet started to play fast and loose with black identity.

I happen to know that Shelby's twin brother is Claude Steele, the originator of the theory of 'Stereotype Threat' and that colleagues of mine in the academy rapped with him. It was through this part of the Kwaku Network that I discovered that Shelby... well he got slapped on the back of the head for having a name like Shelby. Of course, this is entirely unfair, but that's how identity politics works - first determine that 'authenticity' of the messenger...

In the end, I tended to dismiss him on the basis of his comparitively lame academic career as an associate prof at a state school, and thus headed into the long and troublesome romances with Cornel West and Bell Hooks (er excuse me) bell hooks.

Steele's mojo is, of course, assuaging white guilt. I would bet that he's halfway right. But since I don't like his style, I pay him little mind. He's too squishy anyway. If it aint hardball politics and economics, I'm not particularly interested.

Steele writes:

The broad white acknowledgment of racism meant that whites would be responsible both for overcoming their racism and for ending black poverty because, after all, their racism had so obviously caused that poverty.

This is a perfect thumbnail description of white liberalism of the sort that is like thumbnails on the chalkboard to me. And it is because Shelby Steele attacks this obvious (to me) fallacy almost exclusively, he is relatively worthless.

One of the places I start is with Glenn Loury's thesis, which is that colorblindness is insufficient to correct the legacy of white supremacy. The (to borrow a term) STRUCTURAL RACISM of the construction of ghetto plantations, puts many blacks in a hole. Just because nobody is digging new holes doesn't mean the playing field is level. There are still lots of blacks in the hole. Colorblindness doesn't fill the hole.

Steele's dialect fails to acknowledge that there are better reasons to fill the holes in the ghetto. It doesn't matter who lives or lived in New Orleans, the dikes should be repaired, the neighborhoods rebuilt, the holes filled up. But continuing the trope of white guilt and black responsibility begs questions of black economies and white economies, as if it were America's business to keep two separate balance sheets.

Steele concludes somewhere strange and unusual:

And our open acknowledgment of our underdevelopment will clearly give whites a power of witness over us. It will mean that whites can hold us accountable for overcoming inferiority as we hold them to accountable for overcoming racism. They will be able to openly shame us when we are not fully at war with our underdevelopment, just as Bill Bennett was shamed for no more than giving a false impression of racism. If this prospect feels terrifying to many blacks, we have to remember that whites witness and judge us anyway, just as we have witnessed and judged their shame for so long. Mutual witness will go on no matter what balances of power we strike. It is best to be open, and allow the "other's" witness to inspire rather than shame.

This is an argument that obviously has some currency in the annals of 'race relations' but what it is supposed to mean is completely alien to me. What blacks owe themselves is the willingness to understand their capacities under the premise of liberty that citizenship grants. How much of this effort is wasted in matters of exorcising ghosts of whitefolks' assessments can only be testament to internal demons best explained by psychiatrists. That any of this touchy feely accounting translates into political influence is testament to all the things that are wrong with identity politics be they white or black. So no prescriptions or adjustments to such psychic ledgers are going to get us any closer to the nation needs. We need people with houses not made of the strawmen of racial identity politics, but of the bricks of bankable skills bound by the mortar of our educational and economic infrastructure.

Methinks Shelby Steele doth huff and puff too much.

Steele's mojo is, of course, assuaging white guilt.

So he has nothing to say to or for Black folks.

I would bet that he's halfway right. 

...which is why I generally find you half-way wrong.  

It was through this part of the Kwaku Network that I discovered that Shelby... well he got slapped on the back of the head for having a name like Shelby. Of course, this is entirely unfair, but that's how identity politics works - first determine that 'authenticity' of the messenger...

That's not identity politics. That's childhood.

I've always suspected the most hostile Black Conservatives are revenging themselves against the community because they were told they think they white.

I've always suspected the most hostile Black Conservatives are revenging themselves against the community because they were told they think they're white.

And that, no doubt, would be why there are people who would allow the "Acting White" stuff to be portrayed as it is in the media.  Somehow, the whole story isn't told and little is said about how the person accused actually acts, as if "passing" was not response-phenomenon to American Racism.

If anything "Acting White", beyond general American Anti-Intellectualism (e.g. Revenge of the *NERDS*), finds its historical, socio-cultural origins in "passing"...  Now, unless someone can establish that people who attempted to and did "pass" never acted like they were "better" than other Blacks then the whole One-Eye Open examination of the "Acting White" thingy is skewed; one-sided.

And, yes, there is an unmistakeable element of Revenge Of The Nerds in this whole Black Conservative Backlash.  "Passing" has taken on a new dimension, it seems...

"Passing" has taken on a new dimension, it seems...

I seem to recall that you're accorded honorary whiteness when caucasian cronies are sufficiently at ease in your presence to fire off the occasional non-gratuitous "n" bomb..., ROTFLMBAO!!!

Most of these b-publican kneegrows are continuously applying for, and auditioning to receive that coveted honorary white status.

If you black partisans would soften your stubborn pride a little, you too could become successful, honorary whites!

If you black partisans would soften your stubborn pride a little, you too could become successful, honorary whites!

I know.

I would like to take this moment to remind all and sundry that the conversation should not lapse into threats.

If you don't know why I say that, fine. 

Now, unless someone can establish that people who attempted to and did "pass" never acted like they were "better" than other Blacks then the whole One-Eye Open examination of the "Acting White" thingy is skewed; one-sided.

The motivations and behaviors of black people who chose to pass over, as the old folks used to say, is extremely complex and quite varied in its appearances. The only genuine perspective I can offer to this discussion is personal and anecdotal.

In my own extended family on my father's and his father's side there were relatives who decided to live as if they were white rather than as blacks in Louisiana. I suspect that this movement began in the very late 1800s and continued until the 1920s. My late father, however, clearly could recall that as a boy living in Nachitoches Parish in the 1920s that whenever a relative would die several carloads of what appeared to him at that time to be white people would show up for the funeral, pay their respects, eat and mingle with other family members and then at some point would return to their automobiles and leave. No one would see them again unless there was another death in the family.

On the one hand, these people, who presumably were cousins of my father's and his father, had passed over but, on the other hand, they still retained some vestige of familial feelings or ties. They obviously did not think they were better than their darker skinned relatives. And they certainly knew they were not any different save for the pigmentation of their skin.

I don't think that black Conservatives view themselves as not being black. In fact, I suspect that a large part of what fuels their indignation and sense of betrayal, whether reality based or not, is a feeling on their part that black people, especially black elites, have rejected and stigmatized them. Shelby Steele's anger, for example, is so palpable that you can almost reach out and touch it. 

In fact, I suspect that a large part of what fuels their indignation and sense of betrayal, whether reality based or not, is a feeling on their part that black people, especially black elites, have rejected and stigmatized them.

Between you, Cobb and P6, the three of you have outlined a mechanism of coming and going social ostracism that would nicely account for the alienation expressed by these kneegrows. They're basically just on a misguided search for a communal mooring, given the undigested childhood and adult ostracisms many have experienced. Which brings us to the intrapolitical pragmatics...,

You know the damage one ignorant Negro can do? We were in France in the first war; we'd won decorations. But the white boys had told all them French gals that we had tails. Then they found this ignorant colored soldier, paid him to tie a tail to his ass and run around half-naked, making monkey sounds. Put him on the big round table in the Cafe Napoleon, put a reed in his hand, crown on his head, blanket on his shoulders, and made him eat *bananas* in front of all them Frenchies. Oh, how the white boys danced that night... passed out leaflets with that boy's picture on it. Called him Moonshine, King of the Monkeys. And when we slit his throat, you know that fool asked us what he had done wrong?

As a careful observer and routine digital punisher of the 2%'s (that melaninated subminority which obstinately professes to support G-Dub) I'm hard-pressed to squeeze out an erg of compassion.

Mmmmmmm..., Mmmmmmmm...., nada,

As a practical matter, should we find it in ourselves to empathize with our poor Moonshines and seek to provide them with Maslowian moorings they've here-to-date not found? (after all, LaShawn Barber's actually kind of cute if you turn a blind eye to all her self-debasing bloviations)

As a practical matter, should we find it in ourselves to empathize with our poor Moonshines

Yes.

[should we] seek to provide them with Maslowian moorings they've here-to-date not found?

No.  Maybe sometimes, case by case. We're grown-ups, we should be able to let go of kid shit.

one of the things I've found is that our ages have little to do with our sense of our situation. for example, I met a young man the other day who graduated magna cum laude from harvard yard nearly a decade ago. he earned a degree in history and works as a community servant to poor young black folk - has no idea who frantz fanon is...now, that in and of itself doesn't mean much. why? because this person knows the work that needs to be done and is doing it. also because reading fanon is not predictive of behavior - but i use it to illustrate the question of exposure. most of us never have the equivalent of graduate level or professional exposure to this work. and it is why these debates are viewed merely as differing "opinions" when nothing could be farther from the truth.

when folks take positions that are not logical, empirically sound or verifiable in disciplines like warfare, economics, politics, etc., they have a choice...find a body of evidence that supports their theory or practice, create the evidence, abandon the theory - or write that shit down and hope someone comes along in a century or two to prove your genius. understanding the paradigm, theoretical applications, and units of analysis that attend white supremacy should demand no less than that level of rigor. so many people approach discussions of "race" from unscientific perspectives that all commentary is reduced to opinion - where everyone has the right to disagree...and illogical positions that are subsidized by conservative think tanks have as much weight as demonstrable practice based on replicable theoretical approaches...that's a problem.

in 9.9 of 10 schools, children will know nothing of black folk except MLK - and all of that will be wrong. so, our people (fueled mostly by personal experience) show up in discussions on a topic that is as complex as neurophysiology or rocket science...and they participate in conversations based on the equivalent of knowing they have spine because they are physically to stand or the experience of having ridden on an airplane. they have zero understanding of the constituent elements of the issue - beyond the context of their experience...as such, their understanding of thrust is akin to that of a three-year old. that is insufficient - and so maybe a good deal more than patience is necessary. to that end, there are folks who do not lack information, but operate from the Robert the Bruce paradigm and actively seek to betray a larger effort through various means...and, that would be a case-by-case basis for making determinations...but I don't believe we're all grown-ups when it comes to this.

many of us are as babes in the woods. some folks in this dialogue are wolves in sheep's clothing - and if you don't know the difference, you next meal may be your last. simply put, personal experience is no substitute for rigorous inquiry (applied and theoretical).

The motivations and behaviors of black people who chose to pass over, as the old folks used to say, is extremely complex and quite varied in its appearances.

You're missing my point.  The reality and complexity of "Passing", by any estimation, cannot eliminate the very real human possibility of someone "Acting White" and then, once accepted or not being seen as "Black" (or, now, "like the rest of them"), relishing in having escaped the stigma and/or the reality of being "Black." 

Also, given the complexity of the "Passing" situtation, the reactions to the situations where the "Passer" could not or would not "identify" with their "racial brethren" in their attempt, desire, or even need to maintain the distance between themselves and "the rest of them", can't be properly analyzed from the "Passers" perspective.  The perceptions of "the rest of them" and the estimation of what situations amount to ones where a "Passer" can or cannot "identify" with the rest of Black people is always up for debate.

Such a debate cannot be settled on the views and ideas of the "Passer".  Again, my point with the whole "Acting White" thing (and me saying it is tangled and derived from those historical "Passing" dynamics) is to say that the idea has been given legs based on the "legitimacy" its given from the testimony of only one-party -- the "Passer" (or the accused), in the situation.

This thing came up in a discussion about the Penn. State geneology tests given to students...  Two Black students tested with some 50% - 52% "Black Blood" with a mixture of other racial/ethnic heritage.  One of the two Blacks mentioned in the news story listed how she dates White guys and, if I remember correctly, partakes/participates in music or some other type of hobbies that are stereotypically White.  The Black guy said, despite being part White, he was still going to be "Black."  Both shared stories about how they were teased/ostracized about their fair/light complexion.

The point is they both, apparently, perceived those things differently, and reacted to them accordingly. 

that's pretty interesting. any links to the Happy Valley tests?

"Probably the single greatest problem between blacks and whites in America is that we are forever witness to each other's great shames."

that's a helluva statement.

any links to the Happy Valley tests?

whachoo talkin bout willis?

Tony Brown did a show on this Penn State stuff....,

Penn State is in Happy Valley, PA.

Peeping this thread and reading "Happy Valley" while engaged in parallel discussion of the Uncanny Valley in other precincts, engendered a moments psychic kernal panic..,

"Probably the single greatest problem between blacks and whites in America is that we are forever witness to each other's great shames."

And this got me to thinkin' - what if Shelby is just a crack head and the single greatest problem between blacks and whites in America is a disparity in WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY (OR POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME). i mean shame is really for moralists, hypocrites and hoes. wealth, longevity and safety are for real playas. and ain't NO man named shelby making no claims to be a playa. so i thought it would be interesting to reread his article and substitute his JUCO nonsense for some real playa ishiznit fa shizzle.

so here goes. it's not perfect...the CAPS are mine.

THE RACES

Witness
Blacks, whites, and the politics of WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY in America.

BY SHELBY STEELE
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Probably the single greatest problem between blacks and whites in America is that we are forever witness to each other's WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY [great shames]. This occurred to me in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, when so many black people were plunged into misery that it seemed the hurricane itself had held a racial animus. I felt a consuming empathy but also another, more atavistic impulse. I did not like my people being seen this way. Beyond the human mess one expects to see after a storm like this, another kind of human wretchedness was on display. In the people traversing waist-deep water and languishing on rooftops were the markers of a deep and static poverty. The despair over the storm that was so evident in people's faces seemed to come out of an older despair, one that had always been there. Here--40 years after the great civil rights victories and 50 years after Rosa Parks's great refusal--was a poverty that oppression could no longer entirely explain. Here was poverty with an element of surrender in it that seemed to confirm the worst charges against blacks: that we are inferior, that nothing really helps us, that the modern world is beyond our reach.

Of course, POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME is made worse, even unbearable, when there is a witness, the eye of an "other" who is only too happy to use our POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME against us. Whites and blacks often play the "other" for each other in this way, each race seeking a bit of redemption and power in the other's WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY. And both races live with the permanent anxiety of being held to account for their WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY by the other race. So, there is a reflex in both races that reaches for narratives to explain WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shame] away and, thus, disarm the "other."

Therefore, it was only a matter of time before the images of deep black poverty that emerged in Katrina's aftermath were covered over in a narrative of racism: If Katrina's victims had not been black, the response to their suffering would have been faster. It did not matter that a general lack of preparedness, combined with a stunning level of governmental incompetence and confusion, made for an unforgivably slow response to Katrina's victims. What mattered was the invocation of the great white DISPARITY OF WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shame]. And here, in white racism, was a DISPARITY OF WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shame] of truly epic proportions--the POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME[shame] of white supremacy that for centuries so squeezed the world with violence and oppression that white privilege was made a natural law. Once white racism--long witnessed by blacks and acknowledged since the '60s by whites--was in play, the subject was changed from black weakness to white evil. Now accountability POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME OF[for the poverty that shamed] blacks could be once again assigned to whites. If this was tiresome for many whites, it was a restoration of dignity for many blacks.

In the '60s--the first instance of open mutual witness between blacks and whites in American history--a balance of power was struck between the races. The broad white acknowledgment of racism meant that whites would be responsible both for overcoming their racism and for ending black poverty because, after all, their racism had so obviously caused that poverty. For whites to suggest that blacks might be in some way responsible for their own poverty would be to relinquish this responsibility and, thus, to return to racism. So, from its start in the '60s, this balance of power (offering redemption to whites and justice to blacks) involved a skewed distribution of responsibility: Whites, and not blacks, would be responsible for achieving racial equality in America, for overcoming the GAP IN WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shames of both races--black inferiority and white racism.] And the very idea of black responsibility would be stigmatized as racism in whites and Uncle Tomism in blacks.

President Johnson's famous Howard University speech, which launched the Great Society in 1965, outlined this balance of power by explicitly spelling out white responsibility without a single reference to black responsibility. In the 40 years since that speech no American president has dared correct this oversight.

The problem here is obvious: The black POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME [shame of inferiority] (the result of oppression, not genetics) cannot be overcome with anything less than a heroic assumption of responsibility on the part of black Americans. In fact, true equality--an actual parity of wealth and ability between the races--is now largely a black responsibility. This may not be fair, but historical fairness--of the sort that resolves history's injustices--is an idealism that now plagues black America by making black responsibility seem an injustice.

And yet, despite the fact that greater responsibility is the only transforming power that can take blacks to true equality, this is an idea that deeply threatens the 40-year balance of power between the races. Bill Cosby's recent demand that poor blacks hold up "their end of the bargain" and do a better job of raising their children was explosive because it threatened this balance. Mr. Cosby not only implied that black responsibility was the great transforming power; he also implied that there was a limit to what white responsibility could do. He said, in effect, that white responsibility cannot overcome black inferiority. This is a truth so obvious as to be mundane. Yet whites won't say it in the interest of their redemption and blacks won't say it in the interest of historical justice. It is left to hurricanes to make such statements.

And black responsibility undermines another purpose of this balance of power, which is to keep THE GAP OF WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY [the shames] of both races covered. It was always the grandiosity of white promises (President Johnson's promise to "end poverty in our time," today's promises of "diversity" and "inclusion") that enabled whites and American institutions to distance themselves from THE POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME[the shame] of white racism. But if black responsibility is the great transformative power, whites are no more than humble partners in racial reform, partners upon whom little depends. In this position they cannot make grandiose claims for what white responsibility can do. And without a language of grandiose promises, the WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shame] of white racism is harder to dispel.

But it is THE POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME[the shame] of blacks that becomes most transparent when black responsibility is given its rightful ascendancy. When this happens blacks themselves cannot look at New Orleans without acknowledging what Bill Cosby acknowledged in a different context, that poor blacks have not held up their end of the bargain. Responsibility always comes with the risk of great POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME[shame], the LOSS OF WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shame] INCURRED BY failing to meet the responsibility one has assumed. A great problem in black American life is that we have too often avoided responsibility in order to avoid WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shame]. This is understandable given the unforgiving pas de deux of mutual witness between blacks and whites in which each race prepares a face for the other and seizes on the other's weaknesses with ravenous delight. And four centuries of persecution have indeed left us with weaknesses, and even a degree of human brokenness, that is THE DISPARITY OF WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shaming]. Nevertheless, it is only an illusion to think that we can mute the sting of POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME [shame] by charging whites with responsibility for us. This is a formula for running into the POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME[shame] you run from.

Today it has to be conceded that whites have made more progress [against]TOWARD THE WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[their shame] of racism than we blacks have made against our POVERTY, DEATH AND CRIME [shame] of inferiority. It took nothing less than four centuries, but in the '60s whites finally took open responsibility for their racism despite THE WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[the shame] this exposed them to. And they knew that ever-present black witness would impose on them an exacting accountability (Bill Bennett, Vicente Fox, Trent Lott) for diffusing this evil. But, in fact, racism has receded in American life because whites, at long last, took greater responsibility for making it recede despite the WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shame] they endured. And wasn't it the certainty of WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shame], as much as anything else, that had kept them rationalizing their racism for so long, looking to the supposed inferiority of blacks to justify an evil?

No doubt it is easier to overcome racism than an inferiority of development grounded in centuries of racial persecution. Nevertheless, if New Orleans is a wake-up call to government, it is also a wake-up call to black America. If we want to finally erase the inferiority that oppression left us with, we have to first of all acknowledge it to ourselves, as whites did with their racism. Our scrupulous witness of whites helped them become more and more responsible for resisting the WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shame] of racism.

And our open acknowledgment of our underdevelopment will clearly give whites a power of witness over us. It will mean that whites can hold us accountable for overcoming inferiority as we hold them to accountable for overcoming racism. They will be able to openly IMPOVERISH, KILL OR ARREST[shame] us when we are not fully at war with our underdevelopment, just as Bill Bennett was NOT IMPOVERISHED, KILLED AND ARRESTED[shamed] for no more than giving a false impression of racism. If this prospect feels terrifying to many blacks, we have to remember that whites witness and judge us anyway, just as we have witnessed and judged their WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[shame] for so long. Mutual witness will go on no matter what balances of power we strike. It is best to be open, and allow the "other's" witness to inspire rather than IMPOVERISH, KILL OR ARREST[shame].

Mr. Steele, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author of "White WEALTH, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SAFETY[Guilt]" (HarperCollins), which will NOT appear next spring.
"

Here's a clip and the link:

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. - When Don R. Harrison Jr. was growing up in Philadelphia, neighborhood children would tease him and call him "white boy," because his skin was lighter than theirs. But Mr. Harrison, a "proud black man," was still unprepared for the results of a DNA test, taken as part of a class at Pennsylvania State University, to determine his genetic ancestry.

"I figured it would be interesting. I'm light-skinned and I wanted to know my whole makeup," said Mr. Harrison, a 20-year-old sociology major. But he was shocked by results showing him to be 52 percent African and 48 percent European: "which I had no clue about, considering both my parents are black," said Mr. Harrison. "So I'm half white."

...Many unexpected results can be explained by family history. Mr. Harrison, for instance, recalled a great-grandfather who "would cross for white, he was so fair."

"The white women apparently found him attractive, and black women would flock to him because light was in back then." Mr. Harrison added, "He worked on the railroad, and he looked white in a black-and-white photo."

Natasha Best, a 21-year-old public relations major, has always thought of herself as half black and half white, because her mother is Irish-Lithuanian and her father West Indian. But the test proved her to be 58 percent European and 42 percent African.

"I was surprised at how much European I was, because though my father's family knows there is a great-great-grandfather who was Scottish, no one remembered him," said Ms. Best, who grew up in Yonkers. "I knew it was true, because I have dark relatives with blue eyes, but to bring it up a whole 8 percent, that was shocking to me."

..."I am 48 percent white - genetically I am, at least, but not culturally. And the fact that I'm black is more important, because it's something I know. It's who I'm comfortable with," Mr. Harrison said.

"Some people think it's funny that I consider myself Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day," Ms. Best said, "because no matter how you cut it, when you look at me you don't think, there goes a white girl."

She has noted discrimination on both sides. "Black people have told me I shouldn't date white people," said Ms. Best, whose boyfriend is white. Some of her white friends say their parents, too, disapprove of interracial dating. "Other people have told me I'm not really black, or I think I'm better than other black people because I'm lighter."

Mr. Harrison, who says that as a child he molded himself to be more black, does not want this new information to change his identity. "Just because I found out I'm white, I'm not going to act white," he said. "I'm very proud of my black side."

But whatever his genes say, or those of Ms. Best, they will most likely be seen as black - at least by white Americans - for the rest of their lives.

"I think the test is really interesting; I had to know," said Ms. Best. "But it makes me question, why are we doing this? Why do people, especially in this country, want to know? Why are we, as a people, so caught up in race? Maybe we haven't progressed as much as we thought we had."

Thanks for the story. It sounds like the line at the Muffin Shop I go to in Brooklyn. The Blue Sky Bakery makes all kinds of muffins - and folks order mango-cherry-carrot muffins or blueberry-walnut bran muffins. The conflation of color with regions, however, gives some hint into how ill-equipped writers are to deal with these topics. The world is much more widely traveled than "modern folk" would imagine...and these so-called mixtures are simply a matter of the numbers catching up with the lived experience. So many narratives, so little time.

You're missing my point.

No, I didn't miss your point. I just didn't think that the point that you made described the totality of the situation with regard to black people passing for white.  Over the years, as you well know, black people have developed some very complicated strategies and tactics for dealing with life in this country. I don't think much of this can be debated or understood as the outcome of a dialectical process. I think we would serve ourselves better if we looked at these choices from a novelistic viewpoint.

I just didn't think that the point that you made described the totality of the situation with regard to black people passing for white. 

And that shows you missed the point entirely.  First, there was no attempt to "describe the totality of Passing."  Though I made more than a passing reference to it, the point was about the "Acting White" phenomenon and the prevailing narrative about it and how the historical dynamics of "Passing" provides some insights into understanding the "Acting White" thingy.

Nowhere did I place a value or devalue and, hence, describe "Passing" in any narrow negative terms.  My point wasn't even about "Passing" per se, as explained. So, frankly, there is and was no cause for your comments in that regard.

This sort of stuff happens all the time.  But I will ask you anyway...

Now, unless someone can establish that {*} people who attempted to and did "pass" never acted like they were "better" than other Blacks then the whole One-Eye Open examination of the "Acting White" thingy is skewed; one-sided.

What is it about my statement that basically had you insert an *ALL* as opposed to some or many or a few or To Whom It May Apply when it came to "people who attempted to/did pass."  May I could better articulate my point but such selective insertion like yours really reflect on something that was beside the point. 

Again, there was no attempt made to speak about the "totality of Passing".  Again, because "Passing" was not the subject matter, for one.  And, since you did not eliminate what I spoke about from the equation (since you did not say that absolutely no person(s) that "Passed" didn't go to have/develope a perceptible attitude that they were "better"), then what was the point of your comments?

Again, I placed no value pro or con on anything I said.  I merely pointed out that the prevailing "Acting White" narrative is framed from one very narrow perspective and, as it is with everything, there are at least two (2) sides to a story.  In highlighting that, there is no inference that there is only one way for a "Passer" or non-Passer to perceive or relay their experience.  And I certainly didn't question the "motives" of "Passers", though I may have questioned the motives of those claiming to be innocently accused of "Acting White."  That is, of course, depending on the situation.

Complexity understood. 

You will notice how I question the lack of attention paid to "How The Accused Actually Acts..." which, by definition, is varied upon the individual and the individual situation which the two different responses from the Happy Valley tests indicate.

No, I didn't miss the point entirely or partially. I simply added a little more. I don't think the "acting white" narrative either in the past or the contemporary one you refer to, which is actually an old one, has ever been framed from a narrow perspective.

BTW, I didn't insert the word "All" to anything your wrote. You probably need to direct your ire to someone else on this site about this latter point.

I didn't insert the word "All" to anything your wrote. You probably need to direct your ire to someone else on this site about this latter point.

Well, I guess you can explain your idea about the "totality" without that insertion.  You know, your pretense that I didn't "describe the totality" as if I ever made an absolute, ALL This or That statement.

I don't think the "acting white" narrative either in the past or the contemporary one you refer to, which is actually an old one, has ever been framed from a narrow perspective.

Ummm.... When "Acting White", which we both agree is actually old, takes on new life because Black Conservatives, etc. vouch for it's legitimacy and the media takes that account and runs with it to the point to where plenty of people Black, White, Conservative or otherwise repeat it as if it is as "framed" and talk about Black Anti-Intellectualism like they do (and I'm talking about plenty of Black people who are not card carrying Black Conservatives and, actually maintain very 'liberal' political views otherwise) then, yes, there is a very narrow frame and perspective that prevails when it comes to "Acting White".

But, you can inform me of the scholarly information that records The Other Side of the Story and/or details the complexity of the whole phenomenon.  As it is, perspectives like the one's I've seen here (posted by P-6, etc.) are not the ones that "prevail".  At least not ones I'm referring to.  But then again, you can inform me of the scholarly or non-blog/forum published info. that deals with the complexity of the issue in either the vain I have spoken about this or you have.

I don't think that black Conservatives view themselves as not being black.

Another example of some presumptuous idea of yours PT.  I don't think you can view things said in the given context in which they are said.  Nothing I said implied or claimed that Black CONservatives don't view themselves as "being Black."

So, your point was what?  You thought it was something necessary to say... WHY?