In 1903, William Edward Burghardt Du Bois famously predicted that the problem of the twentieth century would be the problem of the color line. Indeed, during the past century, matters of race were frequently the cause of intense conflict and the stimulus for public policy decisions not only in the United States, but throughout the world. The founding of the Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race at the beginning of the twenty-first century acknowledges the continuing impact of Du Bois's prophecy, his pioneering role as one of the founders of the discipline of sociology in the American academy, and the considerable work that remains to be done as we confront the “problem” that Du Bois identified over a century ago.

Although this essay appears very close to the most consequential presidential election since 1980, it was written months before during the week that former President Ronald Reagan died. The great majority of the U.S. media praised Reagan without any critical reflection—calling him the greatest president of the twentieth century, the man who brought hope and optimism back to America, the president who united the people. As one commentator mentioned, it was as if the nation itself had a case of collective Alzheimer's. Reagan deeply divided the nation and particularly on matters of race this division is very much still with us.

W. E. B. Du Bois is a figure of legendary stature, with accomplishments that run from the purely academic to the profoundly political. In the Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, we at once memorialize and aim to continuously re-energize one core strand of the great man's life work: namely, Du Bois's legacy as a producer and catalyst for critical scholarship on the global problem of race. As had no other social scientist of his generation when he began, nor any other over his long life course, Du Bois gazed with the most penetrating intensity into what may figuratively be called “the soul” of the problem of race and he saw just how central a role race would play in the future of human affairs far into an unwritten future.

Despite the rhetoric of American equality, the school experiences of African American and other “minority” students in the United States continue to be substantially separate and unequal. Dramatically different learning opportunities—especially disparities in access to well-qualified teachers, high quality curriculum, and small schools and classes—are strongly related to differences in student achievement. Standards-based reforms have been launched throughout the United States with promises of greater equity, but, while students are held to common standards—and increasingly experience serious sanctions if they fail to achieve them—few states have equalized funding and access to the key educational resources needed for learning. The result of this collision of new standards with old inequities is less access to education for many students of color, rather than more. This article outlines current disparities in educational access, illustrates the relationships among race, educational resources, and student achievement, and proposes reforms needed to equalize opportunities to learn.

In this article we seek to show that prevailing ideological viewpoints on Black health misinterpret Black behavior, and that dominant racial ideologies themselves have negative health effects on African American communities. Second, we show that public policies and practices reflecting prevailing ideological viewpoints harm African American communities. Together, these ideologies and policies undermine Black health by adversely impacting the immune, metabolic, and cardiovascular systems, fueling the development or progression of infectious and chronic disease. Third, we argue that health reform pursued within the same prevailing ideological viewpoints that misinterpret Black health problems have limited effectiveness. We argue for culturally appropriate public policies that value African American social perspectives and coping mechanisms. We suggest that substantive health reform is best pursued through a democratic movement that challenges dominant ideological commitments.

Thirty years after the civil rights era, the United States remains a residentially segregated society in which Blacks and Whites inhabit different neighborhoods of vastly different quality. Given high levels of racial segregation and elevated rates of Black poverty, it is axiomatically true that African Americans will experience more neighborhood poverty than other groups. Moreover, because poverty is associated with crime and delinquency, they will also be exposed to far higher rates of social disorder and violence. In this article I argue that long-term exposure to social disorder and violence because of segregation produces a high allostatic load among African Americans, which leads, in turn, to a variety of deleterious health and cognitive outcomes. After summarizing recent research on stress and allostatic load, I specify a biosocial model of racial stratification and draw upon it to explicate well-documented racial differentials with respect to health and cognition.

This paper explores the possibility of constructing a field of investigation based in African American Studies and borrowing from queer theory and Black feminist analysis that is centered around the experiences of those who stand on the (out)side of state-sanctioned, normalized, White, middle- and upper-class, male heterosexuality. This would entail a paradigmatic shift in how scholars of Black politics and more broadly African American Studies think and write about those most vulnerable in Black communities—those thought to be morally wanting by both dominant society and other indigenous group members. Using a theoretical framework for studying Black politics that highlights the construction and malleability of categories as well as the work of processes of normalization found in queer theory in tandem with the detailed understanding of power, in particular as it is structured around and through axes such as race, gender, and class found in African American Studies, we might gain new insights into the everyday politics of those at the bottom in Black communities.

Despite the feelings of some in Black communities that we have been shamed by the immoral behavior of a small subset of community members, those some would label the underclass, scholars must take up the charge to highlight and detail the agency of those on the outside, those who through their acts of nonconformity choose outsider status, at least temporarily. An intentional deviance given limited agency and constrained choices sits at the center for this field of research. These individuals are not fully or completely defining themselves as outsiders nor are they satisfied with their outsider status, but they are also not willing to adapt completely, or to conform. The cumulative impact of such choices might be the creation of spaces or counter publics, where not only oppositional ideas and discourse happen, but lived opposition, or at least autonomy, is chosen daily. Through the repetition of deviant practices by multiple individuals, new identities, communities, and politics might emerge where seemingly deviant, unconnected behavior can be transformed into conscious acts of resistance that serve as the basis for a mobilized politics of deviance.

This essay explores the historical genealogy of Internal Colonialism as an American theory of race from approximately 1950 to the early 1990s. Internal Colonialism as an idea originated in Latin America as part of a larger Marxist critique of development ideologies and was specifically elaborated by dependency theorists to explain the racial effects of poverty and isolation on indigenous communities. Black and Chicano radicals fascinated by the Cuban Revolution learned about the theory by reading Ernesto “Che” Guevara, by participating in the Venceremos Brigades harvesting Cuban sugar cane, and by the larger diffusion of Latin American dependency theory in the United States. Black nationalists and Chicano radicals embraced, transformed, and further elaborated on the idea of Internal Colonialism to explain their own subordinate status in the United States, which was the product of forced enslavement and military occupation. As a colonized population in the United States, Blacks and Chicanos suffered the effects of racism, were dominated by outsiders, much as colonial subjects in the Third World, and had seen their indigenous values and ways of life destroyed. As a theory that explained the effects of racism, it had its greatest popularity during the radicalization of the Civil Rights Movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s when nationalism and separatist ideas were in vogue. By the 1980s the theory had been abandoned in favor of more accommodationist politics and ideas.

The Democratic and Republican parties both pursue a Downsian median voter strategy that has direct implications for the role of African Americans and Latinos in national politics. The driving force in much national politics is still the politically polarizing Black-White divide in the South, which provides the necessary foundation for a nationally competitive Republican Party. This Black-White racial divide also pushes the Democratic Party to deracialize its campaigns as guided by the strategy of the Democratic Leadership Council. Counterintuitively, however, the more recent strategy of the Republican Party also contains symbolic appeals to racial inclusion with a specific focus on Latinos and a consistent marginalization of African Americans. These are efforts to soften their social conservatism to appeal to moderate “swing” White voters. We conclude that the current politics of race and ethnicity in national party politics, by Republicans and Democrats, can serve to marginalize the interests of both African Americans and Latinos in substantive policymaking.

Proponents and opponents of reparations for Blacks vociferously disagree. Conservative opponents argue that reparations for Black slavery are a disastrous idea and that proponents are motivated by either greed or the desire to do harm to the republic. Liberal and left opponents of reparations argue that the advocacy on this issue will lead to great racial divisions and do potentially irreparable harm to progressive movements. Supporters of reparations argue that it is a case of simple justice. That during the colonial, slavery, and Jim Crow eras Blacks were systematically oppressed and exploited with the active support of the state. They also argue that both domestic and international precedents strengthen the case for Black reparations. This paper shows that there is a tremendous divide between Blacks and Whites on questions of both an apology to Blacks as well as monetary reparations. The racial divide extends to support for the reparations to Japanese-Americans who were victims of official incarceration during World War II. Finally, multivariate analyses demonstrates that for both Blacks and Whites, racialized views of politics are best predictors of support for or opposition to reparations.

This paper examined the interface between “racial” and national identity from the perspective of two competing theoretical frameworks: the ideological asymmetry hypothesis and the thesis of Iberian Exceptionalism. In contrast to previous results found in the United States and Israel, use of survey data from Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba showed some support for both theoretical positions. Consistent with the asymmetry thesis, there was strong and consistent evidence of racial hierarchy within all three Caribbean nations. However, contradicting the asymmetry hypothesis and more in line with the Iberian Exceptionalism perspective, there was a general tendency for all “races” to be equally attached to the nation in both the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. Somewhat unexpectedly, Cuban Blacks tended to be slightly more positively attached to the nation than Cuban Whites. These results suggest that the precise interface between racial and national identity will be acutely influenced by the specific socio-political context within each nation.

Understanding racial dynamics and power relations in comparative, cross-spatial perspective is a topic which should have an extensive archive in the literature of comparative politics. Yet, the field of comparative racial politics remains at its infancy. While we have witnessed a resurgence in the study of race and ethnicity in the social sciences and humanities, much of the debate has been concerned with the meaning and relevance of the race concept, rather than its implementation. The authors believe comparative politics has a potentially distinctive and important contribution to make in the study of racial politics, as opposed to race relations, by foregrounding the role of politics in the social and political mobilization of various social groups premised upon the race concept, racial hierarchy, and distinction. This article provides a categorical review of the major trends and approaches to the comparative study of race in the social sciences, and provides an alternative conceptualization of racial politics.

The 2000 presidential election was unprecedented not only because of the lengthy dispute over the results, but also because both the Republican and Democratic Party presidential candidates directed their campaign appeals to minority voters. Because Black public opinion has moderated over time, Blacks are closer ideologically to the Democratic and Republican parties. Whereas in the 1970s and early 1980s Blacks believed the Democratic Party to be to the right of their position on issues such as government aid to Blacks and minority groups, today they see little difference, placing the Democratic Party slightly to the left of themselves on average. Black attitudes have moderated, I argue, because of the coercive dynamic of their incorporation into mainstream, electoral politics. And, indeed, the greatest force behind the newfound unity between Blacks and the Democratic Party is, ironically, the exogenous expansion of Black members' opportunities for political power and advancement in the United States House of Representatives. However, in contrast to other structural accounts, my analysis still leaves open the possibility that Black opinion could re-radicalize in the future.Note: Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a May 2003 conference on “New Perspectives on the Study of Race and Political Representation” at the University of Rochester organized by Fredrick C. Harris and Valeria Sinclair-Chapman, and at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association meeting in Boston. The author thanks the participants at these events and Emory Denise Christian for their comments, and UCI's Center for the Study of Democracy for its financial support.

We employ qualitative in-depth and focus group data to examine how racial stereotypes affect relations between Black and White undergraduates at the University of Pennsylvania. Specifically, we employ the concept of metastereotypes—Blacks' knowledge and perceptions of the racial attitudes that Whites have of Blacks. Our interest is in the accuracy of Black students' beliefs about Whites' racial attitudes to their group, and the consequences of metastereotypical thinking for Black students' academic performance. We find that the Black students in our sample possess some clear and largely negative metastereotypes concerning how Whites generally think about Blacks, and these metastereotypes are quite accurate. Moreover, these negative group images are at the heart of a key campus “problem”—Whites' hostility to affirmative action and the assumption that Blacks are not qualified to be at the university; and, ironically, most Blacks seem to have internalized a piece of these negative stereotypes. These results are a tangible manifestation of double-consciousness—Blacks' perceptions of themselves both through their own eyes and through the eyes of Whites, and evidence of Steele's theory of stereotype threat, in as much as Black students expend considerable energy attempting to debunk the myth of Black intellectual inferiority.

First of Two Commentaries on the Following Publications

Dinesh D'Souza. The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society. New York: Free Press, 1995, 724 pages, ISBN: 0-684-8524-4, $30.00.

Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thernstrom. America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997, 704 pages, ISBN 0-684-84497-4, $32.50.

It is commonly accepted that Black and White Americans hold divergent views about the criminal justice system. Furthermore, many accept the view that U.S. public opinion is unflinchingly punitive where issues of criminal justice policy are concerned, with this punitiveness among White Americans deriving to a significant degree from anti-Black prejudice. Using a series of survey-based experiments and large, nationally representative samples of White and African American respondents, we subject the questions of Black-White polarization, unyielding punitiveness, and the influence of racial prejudice to close scrutiny. Our results, first, confirm large Black-White differences in opinion with Blacks consistently less punitive than Whites. These differences are substantially a result of beliefs about the extent of racial bias in the criminal justice system. Second, the framing experiments suggest that responses to the death penalty are very different than responses to drug-related crimes like crack or powder cocaine use, with the former exhibiting far less malleability than the latter. Third, racial prejudice is a consistently large influence on White public opinion and a weaker, but sometimes important influence among Blacks as well. Implications for discourse on race and crime are also discussed.

Claire Jean Kim, Bitter Fruit: The Politics of Black-Korean Conflict in New York City. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000, 300 pages, ISBN 0-300-07406-9, $45.00.

Jennifer Lee, Civility in the City: Blacks, Jews, and Koreans in Urban America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002, 270 pages, ISBN 0-674-00897-9, $35.00.

In-Jin Yoon, On My Own: Korean Businesses and Race Relations in America. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1997, 274 pages, ISBN 0-226-959279-9, $45.00.

During the past decade, scholars of ethno-racial relations have increasingly grappled with the thorny issue of Black-Korean conflict. This attention is no doubt the result of a number of high profile, sometimes violent, and often prolonged clashes between Blacks and Koreans in large urban settings. On January 18, 1990, an incident between a Black customer and a Korean storeowner at the Family Red Apple Inc. grocery store touched off a yearlong boycott of two Korean businesses in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn, NY. The 1992 Los Angeles Rebellion, which was originally sparked by the acquittal of four White police officers accused of beating Black motorist, Rodney King, led to three days of looting, arson, and violence. The event quickly became framed in terms of a conflict between Blacks and Koreans, however, as Koreans owned more than half of the stores that were burned or looted. While the evidence of real and often acute tensions between these groups is irrefutable, in many instances the media has tended to distort the nature, scale, and significance of the clashes by over-dramatizing Black-Korean conflict (Lee 2002), obfuscating Korean-Latino conflict (Bobo et al., 1994; Oliver et al., 1993), and ignoring and therefore silencing Korean voices (Abelmann and Lie, 1995). Thankfully, careful, scholarly analyses of these incidents and the tensions that precipitate them are starting to emerge. Civility in the City, Bitter Fruit, and On My Own are some of the best recent examples of this new literature and are each valuable attempts to increase understanding about the nature of merchant-customer relations in predominantly Black urban neighborhoods.

Second of Two Commentaries on the Following Publications

Dinesh D'Souza. The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society. New York: Free Press, 1995, 724 pages, ISBN: 0-684-8524-4, $30.00.

Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thernstrom. America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997, 704 pages, ISBN 0-684-84497-4, $32.50.

Amanda E. Lewis, Race in the Schoolyard: Negotiating the Color Line in Classrooms and Communities. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2003, 243 pages, ISBN: 0-8135-3225-6, Cloth, $60.00, and Paper, $22.00.

John U. Ogbu, Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, 320 pages, ISBN: 0-8058-4516-X, Cloth, $69.95, Paper, $32.50.

Douglas Massey, Camille Charles, Garvey Lundy, and Mary Fischer, The Source of the River: The Social Origins of Freshmen at America's Selective Colleges and Universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003, 283 pages, ISBN: 0-691-11326-2, Cloth, $29.95.

Sarah Susannah Willie, Acting Black: College, Identity, and the Performance of Race. New York: Routledge Press, 2003, 210 pages, ISBN: 0-415-94410-4, Paper, $22.95.

David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State. London: Blackwell, 2002, 319 pages, ISBN 0-631-19919-5, $66.95.

Howard Winant, The World is a Ghetto: Race and Democracy Since World War II. New York: Basic Books, 2001, 428 pages, ISBN 0-465-04340-2, $32.00.

Most American social scientists interpret racism as an individual malady and miss, ignore, or simply do not believe in the institutional and global nature of “White supremacy” (Mills 1997). Two limitations that ensue from this myopia are, first, the assumption that societies are not racialized entities (for a critique, see Bonilla-Silva 1997) and, second, a high degree of analytical provincialism—most studies by American scholars are narrow in scope and often are confined to the United States (for early exceptions, see Cox 1948, 1959; Du Bois 1920, 1945).