To Make a New Race

by Jon Woodson

Jean Toomer's adamant stance against racism and his call for a raceless society were far more complex than the average reader of works from the Harlem Renaissance might believe. In To Make a New Race Jon Woodson explores the intense influence of Greek-born mystic G. I. Gurdjieff on the thinking of Toomer and his coterie-Zora Neale Hurston, Nella Larson, George Schuyler, Wallace Thurman-and, through them, the mystic's influence on many of the notables in African American literature.
Gurdjieff, born of poor Greco-Armenian parents on the Russo-Turkish frontier, espoused the theory that man is asleep and in prison unless he strains against the major burdens of life, especially those of identification, like race. Toomer, whose novel Cane became an inspiration to many later Harlem Renaissance writers, traveled to France and labored at Gurdjieff's Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man. Later, the writer became one of the primary followers approved to teach Gurdjieff's philosophy in the United States.
Woodson's is the first study of Gurdjieff, Toomer, and the Harlem Renaissance to look beyond contemporary portrayals of the mystic in order to judge his influence. Scouring correspondence, manuscripts, and published texts, Woodson finds the direct links in which Gurdjieff through Toomer played a major role in the development of "objective literature." He discovers both coded and explicit ways in which Gurdjieff's philosophy shaped the world views of writers well into the 1960s. Moreover Woodson reinforces the extensive contribution Toomer and other African-American writers with all their international influences made to the American cultural scene.
Jon Woodson, an associate professor of English at Howard University in Washington, D.C., is a contributor to the collection, Black American Poets Between Worlds, 1940-1960 . He has published articles in African American Review and other journals.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Civil War, Biography

218 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1995

About the author

An innate surrealist sensibility was instilled in me during my time wandering the bomb-damaged streets of Frankfurt, Germany at the age of eight years old in 1952. I never completely recovered from being taken to see Carl Sandburg when he was performing for Negro children at the Library of Congress in about 1956. Realizing the dangerous tendencies in my personality, my parents tried to turn me into a normal person by forceful applications of baseball on the radio and brutal tennis training. Once I discovered science fiction and Samuel Beckett’s novel Molloy —read at the age of fourteen—the hopes for my recovery were grim. I was sent away to a New England preparatory school at fifteen, where I suffered a further decline by discovering Beat literature and dada. I finished high school in Washington, DC, where I began to write poetry and was published in the Howard University literary magazine, Stylus, which ran a contest for high school students. At the University of Rhode Island I published poems and edited the literary journal. After earning an M.A. in English from U.R.I. in 1969, I taught at Lincoln University in the 13 College Curriculum Program (TCCCP), a massive avant garde experiment in higher education. From 1971 to 1979 I studied literature at Brown University and taught at George Mason University. At Brown University I was taken under the wing of Edwin Honig, translator of Fernando Pessoa, and I also was associated with Keith and Rosmarie Waldrop. I wrote a dissertation that read Melvin B. Tolson’s poetry through the lens of Gurdjieff’s esotericism, a view that was immediately rejected by other scholars. I have since worked to explore the esoteric cast of American modernism and have published To Make a New Race: Gurdjieff, Toomer, and the Harlem Renaissance(1999) an account of how Tolson was introduced to esotericism by contact with the members of the Harlem Renaissance, many of whom were writing coded esoteric fiction and poetry. I have continued to write and to publish on this topic, showing that other major figures were also involved in this tendency—James Agee, Djuna Barnes, Dawn Powell, and Ralph Ellison. I have taught at Towson University and Howard University. As a Fulbright lecturer in American Literature, I taught at two Hungarian universities in 2006. I now am at work on a series of comic novels.

Reviews

[Amanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's amazing to me that the soldiers that took him across the street where he eventually died didn't come forward to tell their story until many years later!

[David Kent · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting collection of eyewitness accounts to the Lincoln assassination. The book is organized into four main sections: 1) The First Accounts, April-May 1865; 2) The Conspiracy Trial Accounts, May 1865; 3) The Transition, 1877-1908; and 4) The Last Accounts, 1909-1954.

Not surprisingly, the first accounts are by far the most historically accurate, although even they contain inconsistencies as the perceptions of each individual observer in the theater would be different depending on their location and immediate actions. One big discrepancy - when did Booth yell "sic semper tyrannis" and did you say anything else? Witness accounts don't all agree on this.

Accounts during the assassination conspiracy trial are also interesting because most would be under oath and therefore should be reliable. Here too, however, there are inconsistencies. But the real issues begin appearing in what the author calls "the transition" period many years after the event. Here we see insertion of "memories" of Booth breaking his leg as he jumped to the stage, something no immediate witness reported. We also see some indications that witnesses embellish their role in the proceedings. This embellishment, either through conscious or unconscious attempts to boost their own stories or failing memories predominate the "Last Accounts," which were recorded in newspapers many decades after the event and usually after most collaborating (or non-collaborating) witnesses had passed away. [Many accounts are "the last living witness" despite there being many apparent witnesses still living; the actual last on dying in 1954.]

Reviewing the accounts is a good reminder that while immediate perceptions can be somewhat inconsistent, legends tend to grow with time as memories are replaced with fantasies. As such the book loses steam as it progresses into the final, and especially last, section where accounts are contradictory and unreliable. Still, it provides significant value as a primary (or at least secondary) resource to see how people reacted in person to an event that has been mythologized over the ensuing 150+ years.

[Lisa Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author’s chronological arrangement of first accounts by those who claim to have witnessed the Lincoln assassination is a good idea. Firsthand accounts must always be taken with a grain of salt but recollections fresh after an incident are more reliable in accuracy than ones recalled after time has passed, newspaper articles read, and conversations have taken place. These contemporaneous accounts comprise the opening section of the book.
While there is consensus among the majority of the eyewitnesses about many of the events that took place that Good Friday of 1865 in Ford’s Theatre, there is also discrepancy: Did Booth break his leg when he leapt from the state box to the stage? Did he cry out Sic Semper Tyrannis as he crossed the stage or when standing in the box or did he cry out any words at all?
It’s fascinating reading. Bear in mind, also, that there are more than 100 eyewitness accounts. The author chose 100 for this anthology so he has added his own point of view, particularly stating that he doesn’t believe Booth broke his leg in the theater (something Booth wrote in his diary while on the run from the law). He believes Booth broke his leg because a horse fell on him. The author states that he came to this conclusion because Booth was a tragedian who preferred the dramatic idea of breaking his leg after killing the President. Besides, the author states, Booth was a known liar and that was not the only lie he had recorded in his diary.

[Angela · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always loved primary sources and this book is a treasure trove. Good's choice to order the eyewitness accounts from the most recent to the assassination to the latest illustrates how memories and recollections can change. It made me think about what this type of treatment would look like for other history-making moments.

[Rachel]

Interesting to see the gradual differences in testimony through the years, especially after the publication of Booth's "diary."

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoy reading eyewitness accounts. It's interesting what little details you can learn and it connects you to the time. The accounts were gathered from those with Lincoln, audience members, the actors, his doctors, the Fords, and Booth himself. There were some things I was surprised to learn, like most people mention that Booth probably didn't break his leg jumping from the stage, but it was something that gained credence in the 1920s. I was also amazed many of the accounts stating that the doctors stripped the president in the booth and many stating they saw Lincoln without clothes. The most amazing thing to me though was everyone saying they thought it was part of the play. That no one moved even after Booth left the stage. It wasn't until Mary Lincoln, Major Rathbone, and Clara Harris were screaming that people reacted and how the crowd helped the the doctors climb into the box. Having visited Ford's Theatre many times, I'm also surprised at the estimated crowd that was able to sit in the room. But out of all of the accounts, you can pick up on the shock, horror, and heartbreak of the time.

[Lyle Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book shows some of the legends surrounding the assassination. Specifically who carried Lincoln body across the street.

The book is sorted starting with the accounts from the people in the box at the time of the assassination and goes out from there to the ever increasing distant stories of people who were in the audience.

[Truitti · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great information from all kinds of eye witnesses. Lots of supposition. And I love the fact that if as many people really carried Lincoln to the Peterson house as they claim, I believe the entire audience of the Ford theature would have done it too. LOL

[Brooke Barnum Berntson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I met the author of this book who works for the NPS which is a big reason why I bought it. I liked the “The Last Accounts” part of this book the best. I think it’s because so many of the retelling were clearly inaccurate and proven false, that I found them to be entertaining.

[Kathy Myres · Rating 5 out of 5]

Intriguing - it was so interesting to read the perceptions of those who witnessed this tragic event

[Shane Hill · Rating 5 out of 5]

A delightful read!