I'm fairly sure that it's not just racial*, but racial-ideological that makes the media unwilling to label them as terrorists. Witness "ecoterrorists," for instance, who are by and large white and whom get stuck with the label even in the absence of a clear connection to the ideology of the crime. (One example here is the Cleveland case, where the alleged crime--'blowing up a bridge'--presented a connection to environmental issues somewhere between non-sensical and nonexistent.) Or, as another commenter above noted, Occupy.
What looks like a stronger argument, to me, is that "terrorist" doesn't get applied to white conservative men and white conservative organizations, but that *both* parts are key to the operation of the label. So the racial aspect--whiteness--is necessary for avoiding being a 'terrorist' but not sufficient.
*including historically "suspect," now white groups such as Catholics (Irish, then swarthy southern Europeans) and Jews.
I'm fairly sure that it's not just racial*, but racial-ideological that makes the media unwilling to label them as terrorists. Witness "ecoterrorists," for instance, who are by and large white and whom get stuck with the label even in the absence of a clear connection to the ideology of the crime. (One example here is the Cleveland case, where the alleged crime--'blowing up a bridge'--presented a connection to environmental issues somewhere between non-sensical and nonexistent.) Or, as another commenter above noted, Occupy.
What looks like a stronger argument, to me, is that "terrorist" doesn't get applied to white conservative men and white conservative organizations, but that *both* parts are key to the operation of the label. So the racial aspect--whiteness--is necessary for avoiding being a 'terrorist' but not sufficient.
*including historically "suspect," now white groups such as Catholics (Irish, then swarthy southern Europeans) and Jews.