Progressive Political News

Colm Tóibín first read James Baldwin’s 1953 novel Go Tell It on the Mountain as an English undergraduate student in the early 1970s. In John Grimes, the novel’s central protagonist, Tóibín recognized a little bit of himself: a young man struggling to come to terms with his own sexuality and ambivalent feelings about God.

Tóibín is the author of eleven novels, including Long Island (2024)—a sequel to his novel Brooklyn (2009), which was made into a movie starring Saoirse Ronan in 2015—and The Magician (2021) as well as two story collections and several books of criticism and nonfiction. Tóibín was born in Enniscorthy, County Wexford, Ireland, in 1955. Presently, he divides his time between Dublin; Los Angeles, California; and New York City—where he is the Irene and Sidney B. Silverman Professor of the Humanities at Columbia University.

In August 2024, to coincide with the centenary of James Baldwin’s birth, Tóibín published On James Baldwin. The book came from a series of public lectures that Tóibín delivered in 2022 at Brandeis University in Boston, Massachusetts, about Baldwin’s life and work, as well as Tóibín’s personal encounters with Baldwin’s writing. The book also contains references to various essays Tóibín has previously published on James Baldwin over the past twenty-five years in the London Review of Books, The Dublin Review, and The New York Review of Books.

The Progressive spoke with Tóibín about Baldwin’s influences and his enduring political and artistic legacy. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.   

Q: James Baldwin was born in 1924 in Harlem, New York. The eldest of nine children, he grew up in poverty and was initially raised by his mother, Emma Berdis Jones, who later married a tyrannical Baptist preacher named David Baldwin, known to be violent and abusive. In what ways did this tough upbringing shape Baldwin and his career? 

Colm Tóibín: First, it’s important to note that Baldwin used literacy to emerge from poverty. There is also a missing piece of knowledge in this story: We know nothing about Baldwin’s mother. And yet, everything we can sense about her is that she did the raising, the influencing, and that she mattered to him. Baldwin also liked to remind people that his own father was elsewhere. This gave him this Christ-like narrative, where he could say ‘My father isn’t really my father.’ This towering, violent figure of David Baldwin was his stepfather. As a narrator, this gave Baldwin enormous power. Despite being from a very large family, there was, in Baldwin, a great existential solitude. Baldwin developed a tone for that, even before he went to Paris. 

Q: Baldwin first moved to Paris, France, in the winter of 1948. Baldwin spent most of his adult life away from the United States, much of it in France. You also explore the idea that, for any Black writer in America at this time, going to Paris was a rite of passage. Could you put this into a broader historical-cultural context? 

Tóibín: Yes. This really started in the 1920s, with figures from the Harlem Renaissance. 

Many of these artists from Harlem went to Paris [to live]. This included writers like Countee Cullen, Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, and the African American painter Beauford Delaney. Cullen had worked at [Frederick Douglass Junior High School in Harlem] which Baldwin attended in the late 1930s. 

From the 1920s onwards, the report back to Harlem was that if you went to Paris as an African American, you were treated like an American. This didn’t mean that if you were Algerian you were treated like an American. The American journalist and novelist William Gardner Smith, who was in Paris during that time, wrote about how the Arab experience was so different from the African American experience. Baldwin, though, was very careful not to get too involved in [the French-Algerian political debates]. In Paris, he generally just tended to have a good time. And, of course, he did some writing too.  

Q: Baldwin’s 1953 novel Go Tell it on the Mountain takes place over the course of a single day. This is also the case with James Joyce’s Ulysses (1922). Was Joyce a big influence on Baldwin’s work?

Tóibín: Joyce’s influence was very important. Baldwin had read [Joyce’s 1916 novel] A Portrait of The Artist as a Young Man. This provided him with the idea that you could write about your own formation, but that you could do it in relation to your own conscience. That was a very big moment for Baldwin. As was his reading, in 1950, of [Joyce’s 1922 book] Ulysses.         

Q: In October 2008, you wrote in an essay titled “James Baldwin & Barack Obama” for The New York Review of Books that, “It seemed important, as both men set about making their marks on the world, for them to establish before anything else that their stories began when their fathers died, and that they set out alone without a father’s shadow or a father’s permission.” What inspired you to write this essay?

Tóibín: I wrote it in the white heat of that wonderful election campaign of [2008]. It came out of a casual conversation I had, over lunch, with [the late] Bob Silvers, who was then editor of The New York Review of Books. I remember saying to him, “It’s extraordinary how much Obama is taking from Baldwin, sometimes unconsciously.” And Bob said, “Could you just write that down?” 

Q: In that same essay you point out that both Baldwin and Obama experienced intense religious feeling as key elements of their lives. Also, Baldwin and Obama would discover their own Americanness outside of the United States: Baldwin in France, the home of some of his literary ancestors; Obama in Kenya, the home of his father. But in other ways, they differed. Can you talk about those differences?

Tóibín: When I began that essay, I could see that Baldwin and Obama had much in common. But as I [started looking at their personalities] in depth, I could see that they operated in very different worlds. Of course, there is always a big difference between a politician and a writer. A politician eventually has to try and make connections and to strive towards light and hope. A writer doesn’t have that duty. Instead, they often look for disconnections. They often offer images of pure, dark despair, when there isn’t any way out.   

Q: In your new book On James Baldwin, you point out that Baldwin did not, at least publicly, fully address the matter of his own homosexuality until “Freaks and the American Idea of Manhood,” an essay he published in Playboy in 1985. Remarkably, this was just two years before his death at the age of sixty-three in 1987.

“The word gay has always rubbed me the wrong way. I never understood exactly what is meant by it. I simply feel it’s a word that had very little to do with me,” Baldwin once said, in a  1984 interview with Richard Goldstein, in The Village Voice. There seemed to be an ambivalence, or even a kind of nonchalance, whenever Baldwin spoke about his sexual identity in public. 

Tóibín: In that [Playboy] essay Baldwin wrote about how he was called a “f––t”while he was in school. So people presumed he was gay. Although the word gay wasn’t actually there at that time. But in those years, it’s not as though there was an open avenue for an African American gay man to emerge out of the closet and into the light. Being white and being gay had its own problems. But being Black and gay had its own added pressures. 

Q: Could you elaborate on that?

Tóibín: Well, because figures [in the Black militant movement] did not accept the idea that a Black man could be homosexual. Many militant Black leaders thought homosexuality was a white man’s disease. Or they said so at least. Take, for example, a figure like Bayard Rustin. Now, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and others were aware that Rustin was homosexual. But it was always [viewed] as dangerous. Rustin, for instance, wasn’t asked to speak at the [1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, that he had helped to organize].

If you march for one thing, it’s very hard to start marching for something else that seems so personal, and almost silly, compared to the large questions of race and civil rights. It didn’t seem silly later. But I remember the writer Edmund White once saying to me: Did you ever think being gay was sort of silly? And I said, oh yeah, I did. And I meant here against these larger questions.

Q: Presumably, the threat of physical violence might have been another factor for Baldwin in not speaking about his own homosexuality in public. Especially early in his career.

Tóibín: It wasn’t the violence as much as the general business of categorization. Baldwin was uneasy about coming out of the closet because he really had it in for categorization. Baldwin resisted the very concept of gay and straight, even male and female. Baldwin’s idea was that we are here as Americans. The idea of categorization emerged in the United States much more strongly after Stonewall [the 1969 riots in Greenwich Village in New York City]. Baldwin wasn’t really there for that movement. But in any case, it wouldn’t really have interested him. By the 1970s he wasn’t coming back to the United States very much. And when he did come back, it was to see his mother. 

Q: In your new book, you explore how Baldwin’s novels combine a criticism of life that is essentially political with one that is philosophical. You also point out that Baldwin saw how racism in America had maimed private life and had entered into the spirit of people. In your view, is this why Baldwin believed so much in the novel as an artform and that perhaps it could teach us things about the human condition that politics never can?

Tóibín: Yes, that’s exactly right. Baldwin saw the interior life—the idea of the self—as being in need of reform. There was no point in Baldwin trying to preach politics, because he wasn’t running for election, and he wasn’t looking for compromise or the language of legislation. He was much more interested in a larger question that was, in a way, a deeply religious question, which moved into a secular space. And the novel—and later the essay— became a way of trying to explore that space, where he could say to people: ‘Don’t tell me about a piece of legislation that you want to get through Congress, tell me about your soul, and tell me what is in you that allows such hate to take place.’ To that extent, Baldwin was working as a prophet rather than a politician. As an artist, that gave him a real edge.            

Q: What did writing this book teach you about Baldwin the man and Baldwin the artist? 

Tóibín: I should say that I limited myself to a small portion of Baldwin’s work. Namely: three novels and three books of essays Baldwin published between about 1952 and 1962. I wasn’t making an effort to be comprehensive or to discover any new biographical work. But after writing this book I suppose I ended up admiring him even more.

Q: Is there any remaining unpublished work of Baldwin’s that might provide us with a new angle from which to read his fiction, essays, and biography?

Tóibín: We don’t yet have a book of letters. The Baldwin family has been uneasy about publishing a book of letters so far. But he did write a vast number of letters. And that part of his work is missing. But we will have it [at some point] in the future. Which means we’ll have a much different sort of biography about Baldwin.

Although it is tempting to lump President Donald Trump’s obsession with turning Canada into the fifty-first state and his mockery of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in with his other bouts of delusion, Trump is far from the first American leader to broach the possibility of incorporating Canada into the United States. The fantasy of annexing Canada into the United States has a long history, dating back to its earliest years.

In 1777, the Second Continental Congress made an offer of incorporation to Canada—then a British territory—through Article XI of the Articles of Confederation. Though Canada firmly rejected the proposal, the Founding Fathers did not appear to get the message and scoured for reasons to declare war against the British Empire in order to seize Canadian territory. When the British attacked the USS Chesapeake in 1807, Thomas Jefferson declared that “If the English do not give us the satisfaction we demand, we will take Canada, which wants to enter the Union; and . . . we shall no longer have any difficulties with our neighbors.”

The motive for expanding into Canada was primarily economic. In his 1959 book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, historian William Appleman Williams writes that “colonial Americans had viewed the acquisition of more land as a primary way of solving their problems and fulfilling their purposes.” As Sidney Lens notes in The Forging of American Empire: From the Revolution to Vietnam, one nineteenth-century Republican newspaper based in Washington D.C., made the case explicit when it declared that “the country around Lake Ontario is almost everywheres extremely fertile . . . . All agree that Canada must be ours.” Another Republican publication, The Lexington Reporter, celebrated that “our government will at last make war, to produce a market for our tobacco, flour, and cotton.”

While beating their war drums, early American politicians continued making claims to Canadian territory. Speaker of the House Henry Clay, the “Great Compromiser,” said that “Canada is the avowed object,” and believed that “the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada” under U.S. control. 

But the War of 1812 proved a perfect disaster for the United States. The British avenged the burning of York in Ontario by burning Washington, D.C.—and the White House—to the ground. In Detroit, Fort Shelby surrendered to a smaller force of British and Native Americans without a fight. The war may have produced “The Star Spangled Banner” and the war hero origins of future-President Andrew Jackson, but it failed to result in American control over Canada.

Nevertheless, some American leaders continued to push for annexation of Canada in the twentieth century. While defending a free-trade treaty between the United States and Canada in 1911, Speaker of the U.S. House Champ Clark declared, “I look forward to the time when the American flag will fly over every square foot of British North America up to the North Pole. The people of Canada are of our blood and language.” This was received poorly in Canada. The country’s Liberal Party defended the free trade treaty, but paid a heavy political price, while the Conservative Party, which had long opposed free trade, capitalized on a wave of anti-annexation and anti-American sentiment. 

After the end of World War I, U.S. leaders dreamed up a variety of “color plans” for potential imperial wars. One such proposal, labeled War Plan Red, outlined an assault against the British Empire carried out primarily in Canada. Parts of the plan involved strategically bombing the port city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, then seizing territory for absorption into the United States to eliminate it as a port for enemy shipping and poison gas attacks, the latter of which was illegal under international law even then. Before the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, Senator D. Worth Clark of Idaho proclaimed that the United States should set up “puppet governments” in the Western Hemisphere, including Canada, to better defend the nation’s vital interests. Secretary of State George H. Curtis assailed Clark for suggesting “that we adapt Hitler’s methods of dealing with neighbors.” While annexing Canada has not been revisited as a serious proposal since before World War II, some conservative commentators, such as Pat Buchanan, advocated for it as recently as 1990. (Buchanan, oddly enough, also called for the United States to take Greenland from Denmark, presaging another imperial obsession of the Trump Administration.)

The idea that the United States wishes to subsume Canadian sovereignty has long been an animating force for the Canadian left. In 1948, the communist historian and activist Stanley Ryerson argued for greater political and economic independence from the United States in his pamphlet, “Why Be a Doormat?” Nearly twenty years later, democratic socialist Member of Parliament Tommy Douglas assessed the situation during a debate on the Vietnam War: “In Washington they have their hawks and doves, and in Ottawa we have our parrots.” The New Democratic Party’s now-defunct Waffle caucus sought “an independent socialist Canada” free from U.S. influence, warning that U.S. control of the Canadian economy posed a major threat to the country and its people.

So far, the White House promises to use only “economic force” to induce Canada to give up its independence. This force initially manifested in a planned 25 percent tariff on Canadian goods, though Trump backed down on the tariffs earlier this month when Trudeau agreed to greater funding of border security. Even so, the trade war has already resulted in political casualties: The tunnel bus between Windsor and Detroit has been canceled, American liquor from Republican voting-states has disappeared from shelves in British Columbia, and the Conservative Party of Canada’s once-certain victory looks less likely due to its closeness with Trump. Perhaps the Liberals will manage a 1911 in reverse by capitalizing on a resurgence in Canadian nationalism.

In Tragedy of American Diplomacy, Williams wrote that by “expanding its own economic system throughout much of the world [the United States] has made it very difficult for other nations to retain their economic independence.” When Williams wrote that in 1959, there was little if any question that Canada’s future political independence from the United States was secure. That this is no longer the case paints a stark portrait of the direction of American expansionism under the new regime. 

The week after the Eaton and Palisades fires tore across Los Angeles, clear blue skies shone over the city. Residents consulted their weather apps; the Air Quality Index (AQI) was surprisingly favorable. It seemed impossible that, just days prior, two of the most destructive wildfires in California history had unleashed toxic smoke and made thick…

In an unprecedented move to funnel more public tax dollars toward groups that oppose abortion, Republican lawmakers in Missouri are advancing a plan to allow residents to donate to pregnancy resource centers instead of paying any state income taxes. The proposal would establish a 100% tax credit, up from 70%, and a $50,000 annual cap…

In a scathing response to President Donald Trump’s address to Congress on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) sharply criticized the president for repeating a widely debunked claim that Social Security checks are going toward deceased people, calling it an “outrageous lie.” During his address, Trump said that there are “shocking levels” of “fraud” within Social…

On Tuesday evening, hours after the Dow Jones stock index had closed — falling several hundred points for the second day straight in response to the U.S. imposing high tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China — Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress and declared a new “golden age of America.” In two days,…

Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress discussed the Middle East without any mention of Palestinians. This comes as Trump has called for ethnic cleansing of Gaza and posted an AI-generated video depicting Gaza as a resort town with a golden statue of Trump. Congressmember Bonnie Watson Coleman attended the speech with her guest…

On Monday afternoon, two friends, Khaled al-Shaer, 60, and Musa Qishta, 59, were walking toward their destroyed homes in the city of Rafah near the Egyptian border with Gaza. They had gone out for a stroll to pass the time until that day’s Ramadan fast ended at sunset. When they arrived at the Rafah Municipality…