Mumia Abu-Jamal and the Social Wage of Whiteness

The Role of Radical Historians

In the December 2000 issue of the American Historical Association's (AHA) magazine Perspectives, Radical History Review published "An Open Letter from American Historians Regarding the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal," cosigned by ten prominent U.S. historians, all former presidents of either the AHA or the Organization of American Historians.

The initial impetus for the letter came at the end of 1999, when it was reported that Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge had signed a new warrant for Mumia Abu-Jamal's execution. Though granted a temporary stay, Abu-Jamal's appeals were nearly exhausted at the state level: due to restrictions imposed by the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Expedited Death Penalty Act, crucial evidence in his appeal might never be allowed in the federal court. To date, Governor Ridge has signed 179 death warrants;106 of them for African Americans in a state that is 10 percent black. Why did RHR choose to organize historians around the particular issue of Mumia Abu-Jamal, given the weight of official repression and racism against people of color, the killing machine of "death rows" holding several thousand poor and working-class men (including African Americans in grossly disproportionate numbers), and the risk of reducing these larger systemic issues to a single charismatic prisoner?

Our reasons are many. First, we think it is clear that he deserves a new trial, and many are convinced he is innocent of all charges. We see significant political implications, both domestically and globally, if Abu-Jamal is killed by the state. Given the level of outrage and doubt about so many aspects of the case, the willingness of multiple levels of government to acquiesce in a judicial murder (given how many could choose to intercede, officially or unofficially, to block the execution) would indicate a serious turn to the right--it would be a specific form of reaction, inevitably involving a calculation about the balance of forces. It could, and almost certainly would, legitimate more repression, perhaps even a kind of triumphalism, among large sectors of the right. We suspect that in its own way this could be another Sacco and Vanzetti, a historical blot with deeply embittering consequences. RHR discussed extensively how, as radical historians, we were also political actors: that there was clearly an urgent need for action to avert the execution, and an obvious role for us to play as historians. The highly successful political intervention of a group led by Sean Wilentz in the Clinton impeachment trial, regardless of one's views, highlighted the utility of the professional claim, when used surgically, to ground an argument in history.

It took a large part of the year 2000 to gather the initial group of sponsors, former association heads and a few other leading scholars. About half of the former association presidents contacted, as well as a few other leading historians, agreed to sign on. To date, 227 historians have signed the statement, and the letter will "stay open" for quite a while to come. There are numerous options for how to use it, including sending it to public officials like Governor Tom Ridge, publishing it as an op-ed or letter to the editor in leading newspapers, and so on.

In this essay, we want to explain our purposes, encourage wider dissemination and signing of the "Open Letter" by historians, and place this modest campaign in a larger context. By historicizing the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the agenda of social forces seeking his execution, and the campaign to win him a new trial, this short article can only summarize key points. The scope and complexity of the issues raised would need an entire issue to analyze--but they serve here simply to suggest that historians have a real contribution to make, not just to our academic discipline, but also to the movement for social justice that has grown around Mumia Abu...