I'm deeply torn by this book, which I found enthralling, informative, and innovative, but which is also littered with the sorts of problems that arise when the methodology is really thought through. The first 200 pages or so left me captivated, but the book began wearing out its welcome when the many flaws became more easily discernible.
The crux of the issues center around the fact that Pitts is a very good journalist, a so-so historian, and an extremely poor philosopher. Had he really stuck to relaying his experiences, and telling the stories of the people with which he came into contact, and maybe highlighted some of the historical situations, as he did, without attempts to proffer his own philosophical outlook, the book would have been tighter and far more valuable.
For example, on pages 360 and 366 Pitts notes that "blackness" is a construct, and therefore its value as a signifier of culture is limited, nuanced, and problematic. On this I agree, but while Pitts seems to recognize this fact in statements on pages 360 and 366, there is zero recognition of this through the rest of the book, and in fact such nuance actually seems to be missing from his perspective. Instead, he spends most of the book picking racial fights (at one point admitting he was doing so in order to have something to write about). Black is not monolithic, nor is Africa, nor is black Europe. Even the concept of "Afropean" can be problematic in this regard. Pitts wants solidarity among black people in Europe, over against the rise of nationalism, but it's exactly solidarity and empathy with the majority - meaning whites - and the forging of more racial integration, that will stomp down nationalism and ignite unity across the continent. This was also true of the civil rights movement in the U.S. The goal cannot be to hunker down and get even more tribal. Race is thrust upon people, but is not a necessary determining factor in who someone is at their core, as seen by white Africans who feel more African, and black Europeans who feel more European. Race doesn't work that way. Culture is created by; 1) a group 2) located in the same space 3) at the same time. Race is insignificant to the process, aside from the fact that groups are often forced into places and times by societal ignorance, such as many of the communities he meets in the book. His own perspective is also, at times, deeply racist, such as his thoughts about white and interracial groups at the Zap Mama and Public Enemy concerts, or his insistence that "black art" (if there is such a thing) is vibrant while "white art" (if there is such a thing) is lifeless and dull (p. 133, where he refers to European museums as "soulless"). His own ignorance seeps from these admissions, but he spends much of the book laying confident claim to his many assertions.
His ignorance also extends to his thoughts on places he has no position to judge, such as his ignorant stereotyping of the entirety of the American people and social situation (p. 212), and his philosophical depth seems wrapped up in a faux wokeness informed more by twitterverse platitudes than by deeply engaged critical thought (p. 292).
There is a deep irony in a lot of this. On page 330, when Pitts compares W.E.B. Du Bois and Claude McKay. Pitts seems to agree with McKay that Du Bois was really only effective as a racial propagandist, while McKay was the one who really understood art, and maybe, therefore, people. But, Pitts, in this book, in my opinion, is himself guilty of a fair amount of racial propaganda and surface level thinking about the true function of race, art, culture, and class in Europe. Now, I'm no expert myself. I'm an American born white guy, married to a black woman, and we have lived in multiple European countries, and I've read widely on the true nature and function of race, and been educated at a few universities both in America and 3 separate European countries. I'm no expert, but I know enough from my experiences to know that Pitts is more confident of some of his philosophical meanderings in the book than he should be.
This may sound overly critical, and I wish it wasn't, because I honestly genuinely enjoyed the book. But, I think, my biggest critique of all is that Pitts focused so much on looking for the sensational aspects of neglect and inequality that he said far too little about the ways that these communities actually LIVE. Like, the Sudanese cook in Berlin, who made Sudanese/German fusion food, or, the people listening to music in Lisbon into long hours of the night, or, the people near Brussels (about 15 minutes from my current home) who paint and play music. I wanted far more about what they do, and what they love, to be brought in along side of the extremely important discussions regarding the inequality aspects of race and class. The book really felt, by the end, that it was beating a single drum rather than painting a beautiful picture, and I think the book would have been stronger had it provided more nuance.