What do you think?
Rate this book
Back to Black: Retelling Black Radicalism for the 21st Century
The Black Lives Matter movement reinvigorated Black political movements around the globe. People who never thought of themselves as activists are on the march, while groups that struggled to be heard are finding themselves with a megaphone and an audience. But with this renewed energy also comes renewed questions: How far have we really come? And what’s the best way to keep moving forward?
In Back to Black, Kehinde Andrews argues that racism is inexorably embedded in the fabric of society, and that it can never be overcome unless by enacting change outside of this suffocating system. The book traces the long and eminent history of Black radical politics. It is an appeal to reclaim Black radicalism, a movement that has been diluted and moderated over time, willfully misrepresented and caricatured by others, and divested of its potency and potential for global change. Through chapters that center on topics such as cultural nationalism, black Marxism, and black survival, and including Black feminist and LGBTQ perspectives, Andrews explores the true roots of this tradition. He shows how its rich past encompasses figures such as Marcus Garvey, Angela Davis, and the Black Panthers, and then connects the dots to today’s struggles by showing what the politics of Black radicalism might look like in the twenty-first century.
Andrews maintains there is hope that revolutionary change is possible. But he warns there can be no hesitation or excuses: “It’s already too late to be standing on the side-lines waiting to see whether you should commit.” Back to Black is the definitive book on the roots and evolution of Black radicalism. It is a radiant call-to-action from one of the world’s most daring Black political voices.
In Back to Black, Kehinde Andrews argues that racism is inexorably embedded in the fabric of society, and that it can never be overcome unless by enacting change outside of this suffocating system. The book traces the long and eminent history of Black radical politics. It is an appeal to reclaim Black radicalism, a movement that has been diluted and moderated over time, willfully misrepresented and caricatured by others, and divested of its potency and potential for global change. Through chapters that center on topics such as cultural nationalism, black Marxism, and black survival, and including Black feminist and LGBTQ perspectives, Andrews explores the true roots of this tradition. He shows how its rich past encompasses figures such as Marcus Garvey, Angela Davis, and the Black Panthers, and then connects the dots to today’s struggles by showing what the politics of Black radicalism might look like in the twenty-first century.
Andrews maintains there is hope that revolutionary change is possible. But he warns there can be no hesitation or excuses: “It’s already too late to be standing on the side-lines waiting to see whether you should commit.” Back to Black is the definitive book on the roots and evolution of Black radicalism. It is a radiant call-to-action from one of the world’s most daring Black political voices.
360 pages, Paperback
Published October 25, 2019
51 people are currently reading
1193 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
Read
June 11, 2018Well, I have a lot of mixed feelings about this book. I would like to start out by saying, this book is definitely not for those who want to just dip their toes into Black radicalism and see if it is their thing. This is for people who already have studied/have knowledge of this tradition and/or other anti-racist, anti-capitalist efforts. And that's ok! But just a warning to potential readers, this is not for beginners.
The good stuff: Andrews is truly pushing an important message. Too many people don't care about being anti-racist at all, and of those who do care, too many of them are focused on little problems in activism: micro-aggressions, representation on television, etc. Don't get me wrong, those are SUPER IMPORTANT battles to be fought. But they are symptoms of a much, much larger problem. Capitalism, imperialism, and so on.
The not-so-great stuff: I agree with about 90% of what this author believes in, including some of his more "extreme" opinions, yet I was often off-put by the didactic tone. In addition, I think the areas where Andrews addresses sexism and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric in Black radicalism (and in general) could be stronger. At times, the author felt a bit like an apologist, especially in a small part concerning Eldridge Cleaver. And I think he would benefit from more study of third-world feminism. But these are my opinions and you can think what you will.
Overall, this is a good read. Important academic work.
The good stuff: Andrews is truly pushing an important message. Too many people don't care about being anti-racist at all, and of those who do care, too many of them are focused on little problems in activism: micro-aggressions, representation on television, etc. Don't get me wrong, those are SUPER IMPORTANT battles to be fought. But they are symptoms of a much, much larger problem. Capitalism, imperialism, and so on.
The not-so-great stuff: I agree with about 90% of what this author believes in, including some of his more "extreme" opinions, yet I was often off-put by the didactic tone. In addition, I think the areas where Andrews addresses sexism and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric in Black radicalism (and in general) could be stronger. At times, the author felt a bit like an apologist, especially in a small part concerning Eldridge Cleaver. And I think he would benefit from more study of third-world feminism. But these are my opinions and you can think what you will.
Overall, this is a good read. Important academic work.
June 16, 2019
Towards the end of Kehinde Andrews’ challenging, internationalist argument for a radical rethinking of the approaches shaping Black struggles he says: “When we comprehend the struggle in terms of life and death it becomes easy to see the limits of most of our approaches to racial justice”. (p 284) It is a compelling summation of his case that too much of this struggle remains reformist, tinkering with a system that is fundamentally racist and for many coming from a position of (being) compromise(d). It is also a reminder of how uncomfortable a hard-nosed look at global racial justice questions should make us, which is exactly what he does here – take a hard-nosed look leading to our (and his own admitted) discomfort.
The first four of the eight chapters take a close look at models of theory and action that have woven their way through Black activism in the last century arguing that forms of territorial and cultural nationalism as well as other appeals to forms of essentialism but without a focus on modes and systems of global exploitation and failing to work to transform the systemic source of oppression are of limited value and in some cases undermine liberation. No doubt unsettling to many this critique includes the struggles for civil rights that he sees as amounting little more than a call for equal treatment in an unjust system, which is not to argue that they should not have happened, but that they were flawed in being all there was. He is especially critical of those forms of nationalism that amount to a retreat from an unjust global order, both territorially and culturally, and of tactics that amount to representational change without structural change.
For the second half he moves towards approaches that are more sympathetic but remain flawed either through misdiagnosis (Black Marxism, being unable to disrupt the primacy of class), a misreading of the struggle or action from a position of compromise – what he calls Liberal Radicalism which he associates with a vision of ‘racism without symptoms’. Here the argument becomes more difficult because the distinctions are more nuanced and the differences less readily apparent, but he writes with verve and clarity so ‘more difficult’ is a long way from ‘not clear’ – but it helps if you’ve got a bit of an understanding of the movement at least in the US and UK manifestations over the last half century. There are places in this section of the book where he enters into nuanced discussions especially of the Black Panthers and Malcolm X (more so than in first half of the book, although both are important there also as is Marcus Garvey), and at times there is a risk of his launch points of critique becoming too marked. For instance, while I accept his critique of Michelle Wallace’s Black Macho and the Myth of Superwoman (pp145-53) it is dependent on his presumption that it is a credible account of the movement. I don’t doubt that it has been taken as such and understand the concern about ahistorical readings; maybe it is the historian in me but reading at as a polemical intervention in a movement debate in 1978 that helped expose a tendency that (to use his words about Back to Black “may clothe [itself] in revolutionary rhetoric” (p281)) might cast it in a different light. I suspect, however, that this is a distinction over rhetorical devices and styles, given that I find his rebuttal of the ahistorical reading convincing.
He then closes with a discussion of objectives and approaches, highlighting in particular how to work with being a beneficiary of a global system that is built on the oppression of people of African descent and of Africa itself. This is a critique of reformism, of a tactic approach that is designed to make capitalism inclusive. It is also a problem for those for whom revolutionary politics is the practice but who have status in the system that is the target of that change. It includes some challenges, drawing attention for instance to the limitations of a call for reparations for enslavement – which, like civil rights, is a flawed but useful activist cause. All in all, it amounts to a compelling argument for an internationalist Black radicalism, where Blackness as a chosen political position, not an epidermal marker, is the organising centre of a global struggle for systemic change.
Compelling as it is, this is the beginning only. There are two principal areas where the argument is open to critique. The first is the obvious, often simplistic cry that the analysis leaves the goals unstated. I don’t expect a single text to do everything, so this valuable critique needs to become the basis of answering the question becoming increasingly important in decolonial work: resistance for what? There are a couple of places where Andrews comes dangerously close to arguing that immiseration enhances the prospects of revolutionary action – and where a clear image of the goal of the struggle might have minimised the risk of an argument to heighten the contradictions. That is to say, the book’s value as a critique is powerful, but that needs to be enhanced by developing a vision of liberation, utopian as that might be.
The second potential critique is the risk of seeing this as an argument for the primacy of imperialist exploitation as the fundamental contradiction. If this a rhetorical device to intensify the argument for the importance of recognising racism as a defining factor of a global system of exploitation then it makes sense and has value. Where it becomes risky is if that rhetorical device becomes ossified and inhibits the development of tactics that fully engage the complexity of that system. I hear the tutting voices, and would make the same criticism of any argument for the primacy of a single contradiction – race, class or anything else. This is, however, a concern about the implications of the argument, not its coherence, rigour or logical integrity.
Andrews’ case for a Black radicalism is convincing and important, challenging us to rethink and rework many of the last half century’s struggles and modes of activism. It deserves a wide readership; it deserves to be approached openly; it deserves our engagement and application of its critiques to contemporary activism. Most importantly, its case for an international Black radicalism needs to be built into our thinking on the left about where we’re going and what a just world looks like.
The first four of the eight chapters take a close look at models of theory and action that have woven their way through Black activism in the last century arguing that forms of territorial and cultural nationalism as well as other appeals to forms of essentialism but without a focus on modes and systems of global exploitation and failing to work to transform the systemic source of oppression are of limited value and in some cases undermine liberation. No doubt unsettling to many this critique includes the struggles for civil rights that he sees as amounting little more than a call for equal treatment in an unjust system, which is not to argue that they should not have happened, but that they were flawed in being all there was. He is especially critical of those forms of nationalism that amount to a retreat from an unjust global order, both territorially and culturally, and of tactics that amount to representational change without structural change.
For the second half he moves towards approaches that are more sympathetic but remain flawed either through misdiagnosis (Black Marxism, being unable to disrupt the primacy of class), a misreading of the struggle or action from a position of compromise – what he calls Liberal Radicalism which he associates with a vision of ‘racism without symptoms’. Here the argument becomes more difficult because the distinctions are more nuanced and the differences less readily apparent, but he writes with verve and clarity so ‘more difficult’ is a long way from ‘not clear’ – but it helps if you’ve got a bit of an understanding of the movement at least in the US and UK manifestations over the last half century. There are places in this section of the book where he enters into nuanced discussions especially of the Black Panthers and Malcolm X (more so than in first half of the book, although both are important there also as is Marcus Garvey), and at times there is a risk of his launch points of critique becoming too marked. For instance, while I accept his critique of Michelle Wallace’s Black Macho and the Myth of Superwoman (pp145-53) it is dependent on his presumption that it is a credible account of the movement. I don’t doubt that it has been taken as such and understand the concern about ahistorical readings; maybe it is the historian in me but reading at as a polemical intervention in a movement debate in 1978 that helped expose a tendency that (to use his words about Back to Black “may clothe [itself] in revolutionary rhetoric” (p281)) might cast it in a different light. I suspect, however, that this is a distinction over rhetorical devices and styles, given that I find his rebuttal of the ahistorical reading convincing.
He then closes with a discussion of objectives and approaches, highlighting in particular how to work with being a beneficiary of a global system that is built on the oppression of people of African descent and of Africa itself. This is a critique of reformism, of a tactic approach that is designed to make capitalism inclusive. It is also a problem for those for whom revolutionary politics is the practice but who have status in the system that is the target of that change. It includes some challenges, drawing attention for instance to the limitations of a call for reparations for enslavement – which, like civil rights, is a flawed but useful activist cause. All in all, it amounts to a compelling argument for an internationalist Black radicalism, where Blackness as a chosen political position, not an epidermal marker, is the organising centre of a global struggle for systemic change.
Compelling as it is, this is the beginning only. There are two principal areas where the argument is open to critique. The first is the obvious, often simplistic cry that the analysis leaves the goals unstated. I don’t expect a single text to do everything, so this valuable critique needs to become the basis of answering the question becoming increasingly important in decolonial work: resistance for what? There are a couple of places where Andrews comes dangerously close to arguing that immiseration enhances the prospects of revolutionary action – and where a clear image of the goal of the struggle might have minimised the risk of an argument to heighten the contradictions. That is to say, the book’s value as a critique is powerful, but that needs to be enhanced by developing a vision of liberation, utopian as that might be.
The second potential critique is the risk of seeing this as an argument for the primacy of imperialist exploitation as the fundamental contradiction. If this a rhetorical device to intensify the argument for the importance of recognising racism as a defining factor of a global system of exploitation then it makes sense and has value. Where it becomes risky is if that rhetorical device becomes ossified and inhibits the development of tactics that fully engage the complexity of that system. I hear the tutting voices, and would make the same criticism of any argument for the primacy of a single contradiction – race, class or anything else. This is, however, a concern about the implications of the argument, not its coherence, rigour or logical integrity.
Andrews’ case for a Black radicalism is convincing and important, challenging us to rethink and rework many of the last half century’s struggles and modes of activism. It deserves a wide readership; it deserves to be approached openly; it deserves our engagement and application of its critiques to contemporary activism. Most importantly, its case for an international Black radicalism needs to be built into our thinking on the left about where we’re going and what a just world looks like.
April 4, 2019
Back to Black: Retelling Black Radicalism for the 21st Century by (Dr.) Kehinde Andrews is essentially, and suitably, a critique of late stage capitalism from a Black point of view.
Much of the book - some 200 pages - are taken up identifying what is and isn't radical politics, as well as the misconceptions surrounding the public perception of radicalism; Andrews writes scathingly of Beyonce's black panther endorsement by writing: "So starved are we for radical politics that Beyonce's performance at the Super Bowl, the very pinnacle of commercialism, is being hailed as revolutionary" (p. xxii). Radicalism, by its very nature, must always be centered around revolution. For Andrews, any sort of Black reparation, success, or future, relies on a socialist revolution to dismantle capitalism due to the fact that "the limits of any politics that works within the system always end up being the system itself" (p. 125). Western capitalism is fundamentally built on racism, as Andrews analyses the "neo-colonial" relationships that the West holds with countries such as Haiti and Jamaica, as well as the continent of Africa, that prevents these countries and continents from ever achieving independence from the former slave holders. The unprecedented Haitian revolution, for example, witnessed slaves overthrow their masters and reclaim their freedom and island, only for France to strategically barter back to the natives their own legal independence (a prerequisite to stop any future invasion) in exchange for astronomical reperation fees, which have crippled Haiti's economy indefinitely. A more modern example of neo-colonialist blackmail comes from Ghana: "The country went to the global instutions looking for money to develop its rice production, and the opening up of the markets to American rice ended up destroying the industry, further developing only the nation's dependency on the West. Ghana ended up owing the institutions crippling debts in return for destroying it's own rice industry (p. 61).
The idea of neo-colonialist relationships are then applied to "states within states" (I. E. segregated Black communities in America). The case of Harlem is presented, as Andrews explains that colonial and African diasporas were dumped into ghettos in America with no way to keep money within the Black economy; the cycle of abuse is summarized as "economic stagnation and a lack of capital for business start-ups meant that African Americans were dependent for income and products from outside the ghetto, trapped in a colonial relationship" (p. 78). Essentially, Black migrants were unable to earn enough money to start their own businesses, and the neccesities of life could only be purchased from the white man, blocking any independent progress.
The book's most controversial statements will stem from Dr. Andrew's critique of Afrocentricity and "Black liberalism". Afrocentricity, he argues, is almost purely aesthetical and on that basis does very little to actually further Black progress in the West. You can, for example, re-design a plane using afro-centric designs and imagery, but ultimately such endeavour will not dismantle the system that oppresses Black people under capitalism. African genetic traits such as curled hair should be celebrated, but they are not the revolution itself. In the same way Karl Marx famously termed religion as the "opium of the masses", so too does Andrew view afrocentricity, or "cultural nationalism" as little more than a very slight ease of mental suffering. Black cultural nationalism "might liberate the mind but it does little to eliminate economic and political oppression [...] Culture is crucial to revolution, but it is not revolution." (p. 119). One of America's largest and most well known Black organisations, the Nation of Islam (NOI), is also scrutinized heavily. Andrew's rightfully lambasts NOI's lack of exclusivity, particularly when it comes to women - who simply exist to feed the men who are ultimately responsible for revolution - and the LGBTQ+ community, who are seen as a disease which effeminates strong black men into submissive pushovers. The patriarchical structure of NOI, and many African religions, deem them not fit for purpose in the eyes of Andrews.
Seperation is also an interesting topic handled well for the most part by Andrews. He logically argues that Martin Luther King's idea of integration is really a pipe dream due to the racist nature of capitalism, tactfully quoting Malcolm X's declaration that "You don't have a revolution in which you love your enemy [...] You don't have a revolution in which you are begging the system of exploitation to integrate you into it" (p. 238). Andrew's gets much mileage from Malcolm X's famous "House Negro VS Field Negro" speech (https://youtu.be/7kf7fujM4ag), which is used to explain that racism will still exist no matter how many black doctors, lawyers, businessmen, or even presidents populate the middle and upper classes.
So with capitalism debunked, what is the solution? It is this question that I feel Andrews somewhat skimps on. The majority of the book is dedicated to explaining the fundamentally racist nature of capitalism, and delegitimizing current faux-revolutionary movements, but it is only in the last 70 pages or so that Andrews really focuses himself on providing solutions. To this end, Malcolm X's late movement, the Organisation of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), is essentially how Andrews pictures Black survival. Malcolm's OAAU is the most politically sound solution: a grassroot's black organisation which has a department for each black issue, fully funded by a $2.50 weekly membership as to ensure no white dependence, sponsorships or advertisement. There is an elephant in the room when it comes to the OAAU, however. The organisation's aims include rallying around Black political candidates in order to inflitrate congress and enable a more complete representation of Afro-Americans, which is seemingly contractory to Andrews' politics of revolution and anti-capitalism. This hypocrisy is clear as day, and somewhat baffling, as Andrews writes "[O]pportunities have to be seized upon, with a raft of Black elected officials [...] It may seem liberal and contradictory to the radical philosophy behind the OAAU to engage in a corrupt electoral system. But again, we have to respond to the conditions that face us." (p. 269). Contradictory indeed it is, and I don't feel this issue is suitably resolved in the book.
Regardless, my criticism of this book is only so troubling to me because I felt so engaged with the text. Dr. Andrews delightfully pulls no punches in critiquing capitalism, black nationalism, liberalism and colonialism, and the book will be of huge interest to anyone interested in either racial politics of socialist theory.
Much of the book - some 200 pages - are taken up identifying what is and isn't radical politics, as well as the misconceptions surrounding the public perception of radicalism; Andrews writes scathingly of Beyonce's black panther endorsement by writing: "So starved are we for radical politics that Beyonce's performance at the Super Bowl, the very pinnacle of commercialism, is being hailed as revolutionary" (p. xxii). Radicalism, by its very nature, must always be centered around revolution. For Andrews, any sort of Black reparation, success, or future, relies on a socialist revolution to dismantle capitalism due to the fact that "the limits of any politics that works within the system always end up being the system itself" (p. 125). Western capitalism is fundamentally built on racism, as Andrews analyses the "neo-colonial" relationships that the West holds with countries such as Haiti and Jamaica, as well as the continent of Africa, that prevents these countries and continents from ever achieving independence from the former slave holders. The unprecedented Haitian revolution, for example, witnessed slaves overthrow their masters and reclaim their freedom and island, only for France to strategically barter back to the natives their own legal independence (a prerequisite to stop any future invasion) in exchange for astronomical reperation fees, which have crippled Haiti's economy indefinitely. A more modern example of neo-colonialist blackmail comes from Ghana: "The country went to the global instutions looking for money to develop its rice production, and the opening up of the markets to American rice ended up destroying the industry, further developing only the nation's dependency on the West. Ghana ended up owing the institutions crippling debts in return for destroying it's own rice industry (p. 61).
The idea of neo-colonialist relationships are then applied to "states within states" (I. E. segregated Black communities in America). The case of Harlem is presented, as Andrews explains that colonial and African diasporas were dumped into ghettos in America with no way to keep money within the Black economy; the cycle of abuse is summarized as "economic stagnation and a lack of capital for business start-ups meant that African Americans were dependent for income and products from outside the ghetto, trapped in a colonial relationship" (p. 78). Essentially, Black migrants were unable to earn enough money to start their own businesses, and the neccesities of life could only be purchased from the white man, blocking any independent progress.
The book's most controversial statements will stem from Dr. Andrew's critique of Afrocentricity and "Black liberalism". Afrocentricity, he argues, is almost purely aesthetical and on that basis does very little to actually further Black progress in the West. You can, for example, re-design a plane using afro-centric designs and imagery, but ultimately such endeavour will not dismantle the system that oppresses Black people under capitalism. African genetic traits such as curled hair should be celebrated, but they are not the revolution itself. In the same way Karl Marx famously termed religion as the "opium of the masses", so too does Andrew view afrocentricity, or "cultural nationalism" as little more than a very slight ease of mental suffering. Black cultural nationalism "might liberate the mind but it does little to eliminate economic and political oppression [...] Culture is crucial to revolution, but it is not revolution." (p. 119). One of America's largest and most well known Black organisations, the Nation of Islam (NOI), is also scrutinized heavily. Andrew's rightfully lambasts NOI's lack of exclusivity, particularly when it comes to women - who simply exist to feed the men who are ultimately responsible for revolution - and the LGBTQ+ community, who are seen as a disease which effeminates strong black men into submissive pushovers. The patriarchical structure of NOI, and many African religions, deem them not fit for purpose in the eyes of Andrews.
Seperation is also an interesting topic handled well for the most part by Andrews. He logically argues that Martin Luther King's idea of integration is really a pipe dream due to the racist nature of capitalism, tactfully quoting Malcolm X's declaration that "You don't have a revolution in which you love your enemy [...] You don't have a revolution in which you are begging the system of exploitation to integrate you into it" (p. 238). Andrew's gets much mileage from Malcolm X's famous "House Negro VS Field Negro" speech (https://youtu.be/7kf7fujM4ag), which is used to explain that racism will still exist no matter how many black doctors, lawyers, businessmen, or even presidents populate the middle and upper classes.
So with capitalism debunked, what is the solution? It is this question that I feel Andrews somewhat skimps on. The majority of the book is dedicated to explaining the fundamentally racist nature of capitalism, and delegitimizing current faux-revolutionary movements, but it is only in the last 70 pages or so that Andrews really focuses himself on providing solutions. To this end, Malcolm X's late movement, the Organisation of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), is essentially how Andrews pictures Black survival. Malcolm's OAAU is the most politically sound solution: a grassroot's black organisation which has a department for each black issue, fully funded by a $2.50 weekly membership as to ensure no white dependence, sponsorships or advertisement. There is an elephant in the room when it comes to the OAAU, however. The organisation's aims include rallying around Black political candidates in order to inflitrate congress and enable a more complete representation of Afro-Americans, which is seemingly contractory to Andrews' politics of revolution and anti-capitalism. This hypocrisy is clear as day, and somewhat baffling, as Andrews writes "[O]pportunities have to be seized upon, with a raft of Black elected officials [...] It may seem liberal and contradictory to the radical philosophy behind the OAAU to engage in a corrupt electoral system. But again, we have to respond to the conditions that face us." (p. 269). Contradictory indeed it is, and I don't feel this issue is suitably resolved in the book.
Regardless, my criticism of this book is only so troubling to me because I felt so engaged with the text. Dr. Andrews delightfully pulls no punches in critiquing capitalism, black nationalism, liberalism and colonialism, and the book will be of huge interest to anyone interested in either racial politics of socialist theory.
Read
March 31, 2022Not rating this cos it’s such a frustrating read. Moments of insight mixed in with a lack of nuance and a real bitter tone. Big ‘um actually’ energy. I can see the appeal of something like this that unpicks in the way it does but it offers no solutions and at times circles back round into having fairly conservative views.
June 26, 2025
4.75☆
need everyone to read this right now. accessible but succinct and insightful in its analysis. already itching for a reread.
need everyone to read this right now. accessible but succinct and insightful in its analysis. already itching for a reread.
September 23, 2020
I feel so conflicted about this book. It's brilliant.
For the most impressive and revolutionary black movements, Andrews deftly identifies the fundamental missteps in their approach: pan-americanism has either been a narrow nationalism or a paternalistic western project, Angela Davis' integration into academia ignores that the university functioned to create and justify systemic racism, narrow nationalism which focuses on racism in a single country has meant some in the UK are more likely to protest when a person from the US is killed by the police than in local neighbourhoods, cultural nationalism, cultural nationalism, black liberalism, the list goes on.
The "Black Marxism" chapter is excellent. I can't tell you how frustrated I've been by Marxists I have spoken to by their dogmatic views on race (I still love you any Marxist pals who read this, but this is what i think). Andrews makes three particularly convincing points: (1) Marxists constantly view class as the the permanent explanatory historical factor, where racism is merely a form of classism; Andrews brilliantly points out that "class" didnt even exist in the sense that Marx used it when white supremacy was created. Marxists often argue black people are in the "same struggle" as working class teachers whose state pensions are only possible by the government's profit from the oppression of Black people. This is often patronising, and actively unhelpful, as in the case of Sartre emblematically claiming black people will must eventually "give up" their race and join the white workers, and when various communist parties grappled with "the negro question" as a side issue. (2) Marxists often have a strange, eurocentric attitude, because of their view that a peasant, feudal society is pre-capitalist before it industrialises. I remember being utterly confounded in a marxist reading group, when discussion moved to how wonderful it would be to holiday to a present day pre-capitalist society and see society at work there; communalism, or feudalism in action. This fetishising discussion was really disgusting. I imagine this Marxism could remain in tact without these attitudes, which is really just an artefact of the fact Marx's writing focused on a 19th century industrialising Europe. (3) Andrews argues acceptable black radical "Marxism", like the British Black Panthers and Kabral, was hardly Marxism anymore because they focused so much on race. I probably wouldn't agree with Andrews that racism is the "fundamental contradiction" of society - class, gender, immanent suffering, or the state, could probably all be reasonably argued for. But it's great to here someone arguing against it being class, which I've heard far too much about; a central, but insufficient, concept.
The book has a few weaknesses. Andrews darts around quite alot, and the chapters could be titled much better (the "Black Marxism" chapter I mentioned is great but spends most of the time talking about white leftists and why they can't do much to help liberate black people). However, there is only one flaw in the book that is particularly glaring; Andrews' thought about gender is woefully (I think this is the most charitable word for it) underdeveloped.
In the chapter "Blackness" Andrews starts talking about Beyoncé. He argues her super bowl performance was anything but radical, and rather was another well-choreographed contribution to the most commercialised annual event in the world. In my eyes, so far so good.
But Andrews acknowledges he has had some criticism from the Beyhive and argues he was misinterpreted. He claims he has no problems with Beyoncé's performance, and that his only criticisms are of the claims in reaction to it that Beyonce was being "revolutionary". This really comes across as an argument from bad faith. Andrews argues Beyoncé's specialisation of Panther imagery reinforces the regressive patriarchal representation of sexualized Panther women, in the tradition of 70s Blaxploitation films. Surely, then, Andrews does take issue with what Beyoncé is doing, unless he has no issue with patriarchal sexualisation of Black (Panther) women, and his only complaint is that people shouldn't claim Beyoncé is part of the black radical club...
It only gets worse from here. I read in another review that Andrews sounded like an "apologist" in the section about Elridge Cleaver. Although the review is strictly true, he does sound like ana apologist here, it's also misleading; Andrew's is scathing when he talks about Elridge Cleavaer (who raped black women to prepare for raping white women). However, Andrews' analysis of the Black Panthers and women leaves much to be desired.
First, he argues criticisms which claim the Black Panthers party was misogynistic itself ignores the contribution of Black women Panthers who were the majority volunteers at the food programs and other grassroots work. This is true, but misses the point slightly. Assata Shakur wrote in her biography about being told she would have to volunteer for the food program until she could be relied upon not to be late. Doing this kind of work was seen as a punishment, and leadership positions were dominated by men.
Furthermore, Andrews gives a perplexingly unradical analysis of any misogyny which did exist in the party within black radical institutions more generally. After a giving a whataboutism about the SWP's pathetic cover up of their own sexual scandal, he claims any misogynistic issues in the Panthers were problems were with the "members" rather than the structure of the party. It's surreal to point this out; a black radical arguing the problem is with the members of the system rather than the system itself. I was almost surprised he didn't recommend a "radical pedagogy" as a solution with 0 change to black radical institutions' hirrarchal structure...
Andrews also points out women are woefully unappreciated for their contributions to the radical tradition. He gives example by noting so far in the book he had almost exclusively referenced women, and that academics must do much more to appreciate womens' contribution. This really comes off as a do as I say, not what i do.
Perhaps Andrew's weakness on gender can be explained in part by one of the issues in the book he is most reflective about. Andrews admits he experiences a consistent anguish about being a university professor while identifying as a black radical. He has a very high income, and makes use of precisely the master's tools, while black children die around the globe every minute. His reflection was great here, and he doesn't necessarily have any answers, but it provided a great source of reflection while i consider the course of my own life in the coming years; its easy to mistake academia for an admirable, ethical profession. It isn't. Perhaps Andrews' specialisation as a professor of Black studies has led him to overlook serious consideration of gender issues, I don't know.
For the most impressive and revolutionary black movements, Andrews deftly identifies the fundamental missteps in their approach: pan-americanism has either been a narrow nationalism or a paternalistic western project, Angela Davis' integration into academia ignores that the university functioned to create and justify systemic racism, narrow nationalism which focuses on racism in a single country has meant some in the UK are more likely to protest when a person from the US is killed by the police than in local neighbourhoods, cultural nationalism, cultural nationalism, black liberalism, the list goes on.
The "Black Marxism" chapter is excellent. I can't tell you how frustrated I've been by Marxists I have spoken to by their dogmatic views on race (I still love you any Marxist pals who read this, but this is what i think). Andrews makes three particularly convincing points: (1) Marxists constantly view class as the the permanent explanatory historical factor, where racism is merely a form of classism; Andrews brilliantly points out that "class" didnt even exist in the sense that Marx used it when white supremacy was created. Marxists often argue black people are in the "same struggle" as working class teachers whose state pensions are only possible by the government's profit from the oppression of Black people. This is often patronising, and actively unhelpful, as in the case of Sartre emblematically claiming black people will must eventually "give up" their race and join the white workers, and when various communist parties grappled with "the negro question" as a side issue. (2) Marxists often have a strange, eurocentric attitude, because of their view that a peasant, feudal society is pre-capitalist before it industrialises. I remember being utterly confounded in a marxist reading group, when discussion moved to how wonderful it would be to holiday to a present day pre-capitalist society and see society at work there; communalism, or feudalism in action. This fetishising discussion was really disgusting. I imagine this Marxism could remain in tact without these attitudes, which is really just an artefact of the fact Marx's writing focused on a 19th century industrialising Europe. (3) Andrews argues acceptable black radical "Marxism", like the British Black Panthers and Kabral, was hardly Marxism anymore because they focused so much on race. I probably wouldn't agree with Andrews that racism is the "fundamental contradiction" of society - class, gender, immanent suffering, or the state, could probably all be reasonably argued for. But it's great to here someone arguing against it being class, which I've heard far too much about; a central, but insufficient, concept.
The book has a few weaknesses. Andrews darts around quite alot, and the chapters could be titled much better (the "Black Marxism" chapter I mentioned is great but spends most of the time talking about white leftists and why they can't do much to help liberate black people). However, there is only one flaw in the book that is particularly glaring; Andrews' thought about gender is woefully (I think this is the most charitable word for it) underdeveloped.
In the chapter "Blackness" Andrews starts talking about Beyoncé. He argues her super bowl performance was anything but radical, and rather was another well-choreographed contribution to the most commercialised annual event in the world. In my eyes, so far so good.
But Andrews acknowledges he has had some criticism from the Beyhive and argues he was misinterpreted. He claims he has no problems with Beyoncé's performance, and that his only criticisms are of the claims in reaction to it that Beyonce was being "revolutionary". This really comes across as an argument from bad faith. Andrews argues Beyoncé's specialisation of Panther imagery reinforces the regressive patriarchal representation of sexualized Panther women, in the tradition of 70s Blaxploitation films. Surely, then, Andrews does take issue with what Beyoncé is doing, unless he has no issue with patriarchal sexualisation of Black (Panther) women, and his only complaint is that people shouldn't claim Beyoncé is part of the black radical club...
It only gets worse from here. I read in another review that Andrews sounded like an "apologist" in the section about Elridge Cleaver. Although the review is strictly true, he does sound like ana apologist here, it's also misleading; Andrew's is scathing when he talks about Elridge Cleavaer (who raped black women to prepare for raping white women). However, Andrews' analysis of the Black Panthers and women leaves much to be desired.
First, he argues criticisms which claim the Black Panthers party was misogynistic itself ignores the contribution of Black women Panthers who were the majority volunteers at the food programs and other grassroots work. This is true, but misses the point slightly. Assata Shakur wrote in her biography about being told she would have to volunteer for the food program until she could be relied upon not to be late. Doing this kind of work was seen as a punishment, and leadership positions were dominated by men.
Furthermore, Andrews gives a perplexingly unradical analysis of any misogyny which did exist in the party within black radical institutions more generally. After a giving a whataboutism about the SWP's pathetic cover up of their own sexual scandal, he claims any misogynistic issues in the Panthers were problems were with the "members" rather than the structure of the party. It's surreal to point this out; a black radical arguing the problem is with the members of the system rather than the system itself. I was almost surprised he didn't recommend a "radical pedagogy" as a solution with 0 change to black radical institutions' hirrarchal structure...
Andrews also points out women are woefully unappreciated for their contributions to the radical tradition. He gives example by noting so far in the book he had almost exclusively referenced women, and that academics must do much more to appreciate womens' contribution. This really comes off as a do as I say, not what i do.
Perhaps Andrew's weakness on gender can be explained in part by one of the issues in the book he is most reflective about. Andrews admits he experiences a consistent anguish about being a university professor while identifying as a black radical. He has a very high income, and makes use of precisely the master's tools, while black children die around the globe every minute. His reflection was great here, and he doesn't necessarily have any answers, but it provided a great source of reflection while i consider the course of my own life in the coming years; its easy to mistake academia for an admirable, ethical profession. It isn't. Perhaps Andrews' specialisation as a professor of Black studies has led him to overlook serious consideration of gender issues, I don't know.
February 4, 2020
Deeply engaging. Drenched in well-organised truth. Timely. This book here made me question the foundations if my very learning, of my own beliefs, by contextualising Blackness and its relationship with radicalism.
I would have wished for a solid blueprint on rejecting Western imperialism, on Black radicalism, but the way the book ends makes for a sequel. So I'll be looking out on a book from him that expounds on that last bit of this book.
I would have wished for a solid blueprint on rejecting Western imperialism, on Black radicalism, but the way the book ends makes for a sequel. So I'll be looking out on a book from him that expounds on that last bit of this book.
March 25, 2021
This is a very important book. The author cites his next book, The New Age of Empire, as a prequel to this book, and I would mostly agree. This book is for folks who have been stewed in current debates about Black politics and identity and are frustrated in how much there is lacking in these debates. This book tries to fill in the gaps. Attempting to put the rush to cultural politics into an internationalist, materialist context is an abosolutley necessary intervention into an increasingly caustic, neoliberal identity politics moment. Explaining to academys' rejection of Garyey and Black separatism and caricaturing Black nationalism and giving historical context of this is absolutely necessary, and the author probably could go deeper here, but it's clear this not quite his area of expertise. For example, the author correctly critiques Malana Karenga's personal failings, yet while he is able to separate the failings of Garvey from the value of Garvey-ism, he seems unable to do so for cultural nationalism. Many, for example, celebrate Kwanzaa knowing full well the limits of Karenga but know that Karenga stole a lot of his stuff from the brilliant but understudied scholar Jacob Carruthers, and thus do so to honor Carruthers and laugh at the fact that the larger academic (ie Andrews) and the white world think these innovations belong to Karenga. Despite this, the author's work in locating revolutionary possibility in the poor, African world, and given the author does not call himself a political organizer, you can understand his lack of fleshed-out theory of how this revolutionary potential would manifest itself.
March 3, 2022
I wanted to like this book more than I did. At its best, it is BRILLIANT and its steadfast dedication to radical politics truly resonates with me. I sent photos of page after page to friends, and solidly believed it would be a complete triumph. And it would be, spare the woeful takes on women and LGBT issues (mostly the former as the latter was barely touched upon).
Not a single thing Andrews wrote about women didn't rub me the wrong way. Mentions of explicit misogyny and rape within the Black Panther party were steeped in apologism and claims of having been 'debunked' in later chapters. A very 'no true scotsman' take on Eldrige Cleaver. Just a lot of genuine lack of empathy towards the female struggle. Dismantling Whiteness would not suddenly remove or mollify the sexism that Black women face from men, Black or otherwise. Nor does being a Black man suddenly mean you cannot oppress a woman for her sex, or do not benefit from being male under the patriarchy. I truly do not understand why Andrews could not seem to grasp this and the only reason I can come up with is he simply is not well versed in feminism, particularly radical feminism. I've seen a few other reviews from women mentioning that the sparse handling of female issues left a bad taste in their mouth, and I have to agree. Rings true of Simone de Beauvoir's analysis of men being posited as the universal standard and women as the second sex, an afterthought following the male truth, which is also accepted as universal truth.
'Being a man does not guarantee me typically male benefits; for example, Black men in Britain are less likely to be employed than women'.
The above quote in the epilogue was truly shocking to me. After writing such intelligent and cohesive analysis on the insidious nature of Whiteness, I cannot believe that the same book actually contained a take so lacking in critical thought. Employment is obviously not the sole measurement of male privilege under patriarchy - claiming that because (Black - the quote itself does not specify but this does not detract from the point) women are more likely to be employed, Black men don't enjoy 'typical male benefits' is ridiculous. The nature of employment for these (Black) women is not divulged. Women shoulder the burden of unpaid labour, both for work and with cooking, cleaning and other domestic chores, with child rearing on top of that, whilst owning far less property than men. Caroline Criado Perez also documented that women work longer hours worldwide than men (see 'Invisible Women' for an in depth analysis of women in the work force), even disregarding unpaid labour and domestic responsibilities. This reality for women has hardly resulted in an usurpation of benefits or privilege for men, nor removed our oppression on the basis of our female bodies and reproductive organs. It reads as misinformed at best and disingenuous at worst.
Misogyny aside, this book was truly excellent. I'll be returning to it frequently and cross referencing it with other radical politics as I read on. I would absolutely recommend it as a good introduction to Black Radical Politics - it helped me deepen my understanding of radicalism and reconcile it with the Black struggle outside of a stunted Liberal lens.
Not a single thing Andrews wrote about women didn't rub me the wrong way. Mentions of explicit misogyny and rape within the Black Panther party were steeped in apologism and claims of having been 'debunked' in later chapters. A very 'no true scotsman' take on Eldrige Cleaver. Just a lot of genuine lack of empathy towards the female struggle. Dismantling Whiteness would not suddenly remove or mollify the sexism that Black women face from men, Black or otherwise. Nor does being a Black man suddenly mean you cannot oppress a woman for her sex, or do not benefit from being male under the patriarchy. I truly do not understand why Andrews could not seem to grasp this and the only reason I can come up with is he simply is not well versed in feminism, particularly radical feminism. I've seen a few other reviews from women mentioning that the sparse handling of female issues left a bad taste in their mouth, and I have to agree. Rings true of Simone de Beauvoir's analysis of men being posited as the universal standard and women as the second sex, an afterthought following the male truth, which is also accepted as universal truth.
'Being a man does not guarantee me typically male benefits; for example, Black men in Britain are less likely to be employed than women'.
The above quote in the epilogue was truly shocking to me. After writing such intelligent and cohesive analysis on the insidious nature of Whiteness, I cannot believe that the same book actually contained a take so lacking in critical thought. Employment is obviously not the sole measurement of male privilege under patriarchy - claiming that because (Black - the quote itself does not specify but this does not detract from the point) women are more likely to be employed, Black men don't enjoy 'typical male benefits' is ridiculous. The nature of employment for these (Black) women is not divulged. Women shoulder the burden of unpaid labour, both for work and with cooking, cleaning and other domestic chores, with child rearing on top of that, whilst owning far less property than men. Caroline Criado Perez also documented that women work longer hours worldwide than men (see 'Invisible Women' for an in depth analysis of women in the work force), even disregarding unpaid labour and domestic responsibilities. This reality for women has hardly resulted in an usurpation of benefits or privilege for men, nor removed our oppression on the basis of our female bodies and reproductive organs. It reads as misinformed at best and disingenuous at worst.
Misogyny aside, this book was truly excellent. I'll be returning to it frequently and cross referencing it with other radical politics as I read on. I would absolutely recommend it as a good introduction to Black Radical Politics - it helped me deepen my understanding of radicalism and reconcile it with the Black struggle outside of a stunted Liberal lens.
April 12, 2021
This is a challenging and uncompromising read, especially for someone who isn’t black. The case Andrew’s makes for the need for radicalism is clear - with liberal compromise an insufficient solution to the inherent racism built into the white supremacist system. Yet I remain convinced that the focus only on black liberation from this inhumane system - though undeniably the group of people most oppressed and harmed by it - is too limited a project. True radicalism recognises the racist system which needs destroying, but recognises its inhumanity for all, and that a better world is possible, and necessary, regardless of membership to the African diaspora. This book maintained my commitment to radical anarchism, and educated me further on the specific oppression (both current and historical) experienced by black people within the current unfit system. I just endorse a more radical future for all than Andrews’ analysis is able to. The book concludes: “It is only by rejecting the system of Western imperialism that we can ever be free. But as we leave the house we must bring it crashing down in order to truly liberate not only the Black nation, but all oppressed peoples.” When your analysis is that ALL of us are oppressed people under an inherently oppressive system (albeit agreeing Black people undeniably being the most oppressed) your solution needs to liberate all, not just many, of the people the system oppresses. That said, from a Black perspective alone, Andrews makes a compelling case that the priority within such overall liberation should be Black radicalism first.
May 2, 2020
So this book is great if you are already engaged in Black radicalism. I will definitely reference it and get my students engaging with it. However, I think that the coverage of sexism and more particularly queerness are really disappointing in the context of the strengths of the rest of the book.
May 30, 2019
I was curiously disappointed by this book. Interesting but seem to pose questions not really answer them.
August 22, 2025
I really enjoyed this book. Kehinde Andrews writes in a clear and accessible way, making big ideas feel relevant to what’s happening in the UK. What stayed with me most was his point that Black radicalism is a collective, historical struggle to transform society, not just individual acts of rebellion. That idea hits hard when I think about the ongoing struggles Black communities face in this country, from racial profiling in policing to unequal access to healthcare and education.
That’s my quick take. If you want to hear more of my thoughts, keep reading.
One of the things that stood out to me was his explanation of the difference between Black radicalism and individual acts of being radical. Radicalism in the Black tradition is a collective, long-term struggle aimed at changing oppressive systems, not just personal defiance or bold statements. That distinction helped me see how radicalism has been misrepresented or watered down.
The book flows well. Each chapter explores a different approach, whether nationalism, Pan-Africanism, cultural pride, Marxist thinking, or survival strategies, showing both their power and their limits. Even when theory gets heavy, Andrews keeps it accessible.
His reflections on the global nature of Blackness are also important. He shows that you cannot separate what happens in Britain from America or elsewhere because the struggles are connected. Reading this alongside debates around stop-and-search practices, the underrepresentation of Black leaders in public institutions, and widening health inequalities makes the urgency of his argument feel immediate.
Some sections hit especially hard. His discussion of the figure of Uncle Tom and representation within racist institutions made me pause. Having more Black faces in schools, hospitals, or policing does not dismantle the structural inequalities built into these systems. His examples from apartheid South Africa make that painfully clear and force you to think beyond surface-level diversity.
I also appreciated his reflections on younger generations, including Black Lives Matter. Many young people already understand that the system does not work for them, and their activism reflects clarity and purpose. In the UK today, youth-led campaigns on education, housing, and policing are part of the same fight Andrews describes. Blackness carries political meaning; it is a position in the fight for justice, not just an identity.
The epilogue, It’s Already Too Late, leaves a sense of urgency. Change cannot wait; it must happen now.
That’s my quick take. If you want to hear more of my thoughts, keep reading.
One of the things that stood out to me was his explanation of the difference between Black radicalism and individual acts of being radical. Radicalism in the Black tradition is a collective, long-term struggle aimed at changing oppressive systems, not just personal defiance or bold statements. That distinction helped me see how radicalism has been misrepresented or watered down.
The book flows well. Each chapter explores a different approach, whether nationalism, Pan-Africanism, cultural pride, Marxist thinking, or survival strategies, showing both their power and their limits. Even when theory gets heavy, Andrews keeps it accessible.
His reflections on the global nature of Blackness are also important. He shows that you cannot separate what happens in Britain from America or elsewhere because the struggles are connected. Reading this alongside debates around stop-and-search practices, the underrepresentation of Black leaders in public institutions, and widening health inequalities makes the urgency of his argument feel immediate.
Some sections hit especially hard. His discussion of the figure of Uncle Tom and representation within racist institutions made me pause. Having more Black faces in schools, hospitals, or policing does not dismantle the structural inequalities built into these systems. His examples from apartheid South Africa make that painfully clear and force you to think beyond surface-level diversity.
I also appreciated his reflections on younger generations, including Black Lives Matter. Many young people already understand that the system does not work for them, and their activism reflects clarity and purpose. In the UK today, youth-led campaigns on education, housing, and policing are part of the same fight Andrews describes. Blackness carries political meaning; it is a position in the fight for justice, not just an identity.
The epilogue, It’s Already Too Late, leaves a sense of urgency. Change cannot wait; it must happen now.
February 25, 2020
In Back to Black, Kehinde Andrews makes the case that since Black people across the world are unfairly treated by racial majorities in their own countries and the oppression of majority White countries on Black countries, Black people need to unite to change the way politics are done and economies run. According to Andrews, the shining example or role model for this systematic restructuring is Malcolm X who, before his death, had founded the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), which was built to create local government networks across towns and states and countries that would help protect the rights of Black and non-White peoples. Andrews believes you can trace a kind of legacy of Malcolm X's plans. The inheritors of Malcolm were the Black Panthers, but the Black Panthers were extinguished by government. Now these ideas of unity have become diffuse and can be taken up by other people who wish to start working from the grassroots. The kind of work that would need to be done would be to petition for the impossible. One of the most surprising aspects of Andrews' book is when he reveals the estimated cost for reparations, were they to be paid in full. "In return for building the West our ancestors received nothing. The bill for unpaid labor for centuries of work runs into the countless trillions. In America alone it is estimated that Black people are owed anywhere between $5.9 and $14.2 trillion in back pay, not including waves for murder, rape and torture." This is a payback that would "cripple the Western economy," he writes. And it also reveals that Western economies would not have what they do were it not for the unpaid work of slavery, and in that sense everyone is implicated in the injustice.
September 18, 2021
Before reading Kehinde Andrews’ Back to Black, I had no knowledge of any black radical movements. I had thought that MLK’s March on Washington qualified as radical, but Andrews actually reveals it was not because it did not challenge the American system but merely asked that Blacks be integrated into the preexisting (and racist) system. I particularly enjoyed Andrews’ understanding of black radicalism as a desire to “rejec[t] the system of Western imperialism…in order to truly liberate” both Africa (a terribly colonized nation still reeling from imperialism) and all diasporic Blacks (298). Andrews’ global focus on the full Black diaspora was refreshing and avoided the trap of remaining too American or British-centric. Finally, Andrews’ point that the American and British Black focus on “the microaggressions [that] are a symptom of racism,” which distracts people from the reality that “we cannot cure racism within this system” really helped shape my understanding of racism’ roots and established Andrews’ desire for revolution (220-221).
However, I am left with unanswered questions: when he desires an “overturning of the system…and for nothing short of a revolution,” what does this revolution look like (xvii)? Andrews defines Black radicalism by what it is not: it is not Black Marxism, cultural nationalism, liberal radicalism, and pan-Africanism. But then, what is Black radicalism? As a ground movement, what will it look like? Does it desire the overthrow of Western capitalism entirely, or only its imperialist elements? Can any parts of capitalism be recuperated? If not, what new order will be established? Does he desire the Black diaspora to eventually return to Africa and abandon the fallen Western system?
Additionally, I did disagree with Andrews in his prologue, where he attempts to reclaim the term “radical” from “extremist,” stating that “radicalism and extremism are actually completely opposite concepts” (xviii). While there are nuanced differences between these terms, I feel the dichotomy he establishes is not accurate. Andrews rightly states that radicalism means a return to the “root” of a concept, but then argues that religions like Islam and Christianity are not “radical” when they become fundamentalist, but instead are “extreme” (xviii). However, Christian and Islamic fundamentalists view themselves as “radical” because they feel they are returning their religion solely to its “roots,” or the original doctrine (ie. only reading the Bible or the Koran, respectively). This is the basis of their fundamentalism: their belief in their “radical” return to their religion’s roots, and this return can lead to extremist actions and violence. I think Andrews wants to separate radicalism from extremism in order to establish that radicalism does not necessitate violence like extremism does (with which I agree). But again, does Andrews’ desired Black radical revolution include violence? If so, then why establish such a dichotomy between radicalism and extremism in the prologue?
However, I am left with unanswered questions: when he desires an “overturning of the system…and for nothing short of a revolution,” what does this revolution look like (xvii)? Andrews defines Black radicalism by what it is not: it is not Black Marxism, cultural nationalism, liberal radicalism, and pan-Africanism. But then, what is Black radicalism? As a ground movement, what will it look like? Does it desire the overthrow of Western capitalism entirely, or only its imperialist elements? Can any parts of capitalism be recuperated? If not, what new order will be established? Does he desire the Black diaspora to eventually return to Africa and abandon the fallen Western system?
Additionally, I did disagree with Andrews in his prologue, where he attempts to reclaim the term “radical” from “extremist,” stating that “radicalism and extremism are actually completely opposite concepts” (xviii). While there are nuanced differences between these terms, I feel the dichotomy he establishes is not accurate. Andrews rightly states that radicalism means a return to the “root” of a concept, but then argues that religions like Islam and Christianity are not “radical” when they become fundamentalist, but instead are “extreme” (xviii). However, Christian and Islamic fundamentalists view themselves as “radical” because they feel they are returning their religion solely to its “roots,” or the original doctrine (ie. only reading the Bible or the Koran, respectively). This is the basis of their fundamentalism: their belief in their “radical” return to their religion’s roots, and this return can lead to extremist actions and violence. I think Andrews wants to separate radicalism from extremism in order to establish that radicalism does not necessitate violence like extremism does (with which I agree). But again, does Andrews’ desired Black radical revolution include violence? If so, then why establish such a dichotomy between radicalism and extremism in the prologue?
March 6, 2023
I'm not the central target audience of this so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. This is mostly good, I agree with a lot of what he says about radicalism and how liberal and progressive action often thinks it's radical while upholding the system. I agree that with his ideas for action, his international approach to tackling racism and anti blackness, his acknowledgement of privileged and academic centering of microaggression over larger problems (both are bad for the record.) I think of this like I see many transgender issues. I'm still struggling for my life and dealing with horrors of being disabled and trans in a healthcare system infused with fascism and pronouns are not at the top of my list yet that seems to be the most important thing to cis and some other people.
He really needs to work on his gender analysis. He tried. But, he didn't do very well. Tied to this is hid ableism and calling racism by names of symptoms or disabilities. Between those two is an ethics of care which is radical but he would say isn't if it upholds some sort of gender norm. But he falls into the same trap by assuming only stuff often tied to masculinity is the real radical action.
These are tough conversations though and I really do get what he wanted to say. He needs to check himself a bit more though and listen to radical women and disabled people. And don't talk shit on women's sexuality. And talk more shit on eldridge cleaver.
He really needs to work on his gender analysis. He tried. But, he didn't do very well. Tied to this is hid ableism and calling racism by names of symptoms or disabilities. Between those two is an ethics of care which is radical but he would say isn't if it upholds some sort of gender norm. But he falls into the same trap by assuming only stuff often tied to masculinity is the real radical action.
These are tough conversations though and I really do get what he wanted to say. He needs to check himself a bit more though and listen to radical women and disabled people. And don't talk shit on women's sexuality. And talk more shit on eldridge cleaver.
June 19, 2019
Back to a Black is Kehinde Andrews's sweeping, comprehensive study of eight Black resistance movements and ideologies: State-Centered Nationalism; Pan-Africanism; Black Marxism; Cultural Nationalism; Liberal Radicalism; the Global Black Nation; the Meanings of Blackness; and Survival within the Imperial Machine. If you’re interested in a lively history of these Black resistance movements and ideas, then this is the text for you.
In it, Andrews does not simply offer a concise history of these international Black resistance frameworks, but he scathingly critiques each movement and ideology, one by one. At base, the book is not meant solely to expose its reader to these major Black resistance frameworks, but to explain how each of these frameworks diverges from a Black radical framework, as, according to Andrews, only the Black radical framework is capable of ushering in the Black revolution.
The problem I had wasn’t that Andrews argued against the use of these resistance frameworks, but that his arguments are well-worn and unoriginal. As is the case with many comprehensive studies, it reads as a primer. Though the content covered in Back to Black is wide, Andrews’s analyses are thin.
In it, Andrews does not simply offer a concise history of these international Black resistance frameworks, but he scathingly critiques each movement and ideology, one by one. At base, the book is not meant solely to expose its reader to these major Black resistance frameworks, but to explain how each of these frameworks diverges from a Black radical framework, as, according to Andrews, only the Black radical framework is capable of ushering in the Black revolution.
The problem I had wasn’t that Andrews argued against the use of these resistance frameworks, but that his arguments are well-worn and unoriginal. As is the case with many comprehensive studies, it reads as a primer. Though the content covered in Back to Black is wide, Andrews’s analyses are thin.
March 30, 2020
Back To Black is a real blunt, taking no prisoners, educational book. Did I enjoy reading it? Hmm, as a kid I didn’t enjoy having to eat an orange when I wanted to yam down a pack of Chewit sweets but it was beneficial and I’m thankful I did. If you finish this book and haven’t come out with notes and research points then you haven’t read it properly. I had so many notes that I lost some. Seriously I was a mess, running around with pieces of paper.
This book is, without doubt, an uncompromising and very in-depth look over black movements and politics throughout the 21st century. When reading it it’s very clear how well structured it is and researched. Forreal forreal I think it’ll go over a lot of peoples heads though. Many people like to hear how things can change but do they really want to be in the work, hmm not overly!
Full review over at my website. www.frizzandgo.com/blog/backtoblack/b...
This book is, without doubt, an uncompromising and very in-depth look over black movements and politics throughout the 21st century. When reading it it’s very clear how well structured it is and researched. Forreal forreal I think it’ll go over a lot of peoples heads though. Many people like to hear how things can change but do they really want to be in the work, hmm not overly!
Full review over at my website. www.frizzandgo.com/blog/backtoblack/b...
October 19, 2023
0 respect for a book that tries to be intellectual by bashing absolutely everything…. Okay I agree with critiques of imperialism, the west capitalism etc and then some of the questionable aspect of Du Bois’ work, I thought interesting points were raised. But the chapter on black marxism ignored the greats who have created such detailed marxist antimperialist critiques ie Rodney Robinson etc to shit on white leftists! Ignores the intersecting and overlapping struggles to see blackness as a singular entity and also as an essentialist concept rather than a socialised and created concept. What’s more it was insanely sexist, referenced maybe 2 women and then proceeded to shit on them, denied any sexism within black movements and was complicit in lots of apologia for bigots. Just such a waste of time, so much potential absolutely down the drain
October 18, 2023
I started this book years ago and never finished it. Not sure I was ready for it then but after reading the Psychosis Of Whiteness, I wanted more and went back to it. I listened to the audiobook and enjoyed listening to words in the authors own voice. It's a confronting read but also very necessary. Kehinde gives a thorough critical analysis of a wide range of black political structures and no organisation or historical figure loved or not is spared. Brilliant work.
April 25, 2019
In a nutshell: Black people need to recognize themselves as members of a global "nation" who are oppressed and exploited by the same system of white supremacy. Organizing together with this consciousness -- and with a firm commitment to the liberation of geographical Africans as well as the diaspora -- is the path to Black liberation.
more to come...
more to come...
October 16, 2020
A passionate and accessible but also under-theorized and frustratingly myopic account of Black radical traditions. The ease with which it discounts whole schools of thought while at the same time pushing through a very specific notion of Black radicalism as the only way forward feels willfully dogmatic, which is a shame.
February 19, 2021
Very informative - clearly maps out how the West is still dependent on the exploitation of Africa to advance its own wealth. The part around how the smartphone has become simultaneously a symbol of empowerment (i.e. being able to film and evidence racial violence), yet also a symbol of oppression through exploitation of resources was an interesting point to make.
May 29, 2024
i think this book was super interesting in the sense that it covers sooo much. i think it’s a good place to start if you’ve read academic books before but nothing about black radicalism. i do think it lacked solutions and answers to things going forward and was much more just a critique that anything else but that doesn’t make it bad, just not what i was expecting.
July 1, 2019
loved the analysis. hated the misogynoir.
August 28, 2020
Thank you
January 12, 2021
A well written exploration on Black radicalism which is deep, thought provoking and at times unsettling!
November 13, 2024
i sure had a bit of a ride with this book 😭 i tried reading back to black in june this year, and i think i only made it through the introduction and some of chapter one before i decided to dnf. i found it tough to digest and felt too stupid to read it. luckily it was a case of reading the wrong book at the wrong time, as picking it up again i made it through and my understanding was much better! even so, it was still a bit of a slog to get through and i don’t think the message connected to me as much as it could have.
✧ full review on my tumblr ✧
✧ full review on my tumblr ✧
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews