
Dunn's lawyer, Cory Strolla, insisted that the trial was not about race, but instead about a "subculture thug issue." But what work is "thug" doing here, other than to dehumanize a group of young men for the purposes of devaluing their lives in order to justify ending them? Maybe Jordan Davis and his friends were being obnoxious that night. Maybe they were being really obnoxious. I don't know because I wasn't there. But "thug," in this context, is meant to signal that, almost no matter what those kids did, they deserved to be treated with a lesser presumption of basic humanity and were, therefore, reasonably subject to the ultimate punishment. If you're already in a lesser category of human being, then one false move, like playing loud music, means it's open season. This is, I think, in part what Ta-Nehisi Coates meant when he wrote, in the aftermath of the Davis-Dunn verdict, of the "irrelevance of black life" in America. And it's what Richard Sherman knew to be true when he made his comments at the Super Bowl about the use of the word "thug." Michael Dunn's defense connects the word "thug" to the deeper history of American racism of which the N-word has been such a potent and essential part. And it also suggests that the use of certain terms in certain contexts can't be dismissed as "merely" words. Those words sometimes carry with them hateful potency.