Omise’eke Tinsley writes:
“When interviewed after the jury returned a guilty verdict, Richards’s lawyer Nana Gyamfi speculated that Richards was judged not for her actions but for her assertiveness, her unapologetic style of protest.
“What I tried to get the jury to do is not equate blackness with violence. Just because you see black bodies and the black bodies are angry or disappointed or angry or cussing, that is not a crime,” Gyamfi explained. “Unfortunately, I was not able to do that.”
And if blackness is always already linked to violence, the stereotypical angry black dyke — imaginary crazy cousin to the angry black woman — is always already presumed doubly out of control. Had Richards appeared in court in pearls, lipstick, and a skirt with a husband seated behind her, would Gyamfi have had an easier time convincing the jury she might be something other than a belligerent, (white) man-hating radical run amok?”
Read it all: Tinsley – Black, Butch, and a Target | The Advocate
H/T Dara Cooper on Twitter