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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Michael K. Brown, Martin Carnoy, Elliott Currie, Troy Duster, David B. Oppenheimer, Marjorie M. Shultz, and David Wellman, Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-blind Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003, 349 pages, ISBN 0-520-23706-4, $27.50.

Paul M. Sniderman and Thomas Piazza, Black Pride and Black Prejudice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002, 192 pages, ISBN 0-691-09261-3, $24.95.

These two texts represent a somewhat unlikely pairing. What could an empirically detailed but wide-ranging, really indignant indictment of new right-wing homilies about racial politics—that's Whitewashing Race—have in common with what inquiring minds want to know about Black Pride and Black Prejudice, a carefully stepping report of results mostly from a 1997 survey, posing and answering such questions as whether African Americans share the “larger culture's” values, succumb to conspiratorial thinking, or are anti-Semitic? At the level of pure geography trivia, it so happens that all of the authors involved in generating these new books have some claim to Northern California roots or associations. But beyond that, do they have anything in common?

Carol M. Swain, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 526 pages, ISBN 0-521-80886-3, $30.00.

Paul M. Kellstedt, The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 174 pages, ISBN 0-521-82171-1, $60.00.

Carol M. Swain's book, The New White Nationalism in American: Its Challenge to Integration, is an ambitious and, in many ways, novel blend of traditional social science and social advocacy. At the outset, Swain informs the reader that this book breaks with “… the tradition of impersonal, value-free social science insofar as I do not pretend to be neutral and do not hesitate to interject many personal observations and comments into the body of the text.” She does not disappoint on this score. This nearly 500-page book combines original interviews and survey and focus group data, with Swain's reflections on a range of topics including reparations, affirmative action, racial hate crimes, and the redemptive power of religion. To Swain's credit, she also steps outside her role as a (nominally) dispassionate social scientist to offer a range of policy prescriptions near the end of her book to combat what she views as the potentially alarming growth of the White power movement. In many ways, Swain's passion for her subject is refreshing, and even commendable. Unfortunately, her passion is also the source of the principal weakness of this book: its inability to match its uncompromising rhetoric with persuasive, or even plausible, supportive evidence for readers who do not already agree with her arguments.