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? ( )