What best to call the Malheur refuge occupiers?

Protesters, terrorists, patriots — the list goes on for words some use to describe the militia members who have taken over a national wildlife refuge near Burns. The occupiers are calling themselves patriots, as they are protesting government overreach.

But others are saying they should be called terrorists, and that the only reason why they aren’t is because of the color of their skin.

The armed group now calling itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom has taken over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Protest spokesman Ammon Bundy says his group is armed, but its members should not be considered terrorists or militia.

“The only violence, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back and that’s what it would be about,” Bundy said. “We’re putting nobody in harm’s way. We are not threatening anybody.”

Central Oregon Community College anthropology professor Amy Harper explained how naming a group has consequences.

She said when someone hears the term “protester,” they often assume there is logic behind their cause.

On the other hand, “a rioter or a terrorist, we reduce all that to say there is nothing even worth engaging– they’re not logical, they’re not responsible. They’re emotional and we need to respond back,” Harper said.

Others argue that if the occupiers were black or Muslim, they would be treated differently. Elon James White started the hashtag #oregonunderattack to emphasize how he thought people would react if the occupiers weren’t white.

Harper said, “When you hear the word terrorists, if in your mind you are already getting an idea of how a particular person looks, and what group of people they represent, then that means that we have something problematic about how we’re using the terms.”

She said the language the media uses can greatly shape the public’s opinion, such as in the incident with the men occupying the refuge.