Abstract
When asked if she would go to the White House if invited, Megan Rapinoe stated, “I’m not going to the fucking White House.” The next morning, President Donald Trump posted a series of tweets in which he criticized Rapinoe’s statements. In his tweets, Trump introduced issues around race in the United States and brought forth his own notion of nationalism. The purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis of users’ tweets to determine how individuals employed Twitter to craft a narrative and discuss the ongoing Rapinoe and Trump feud within and outside the bounds of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and nationalism. An inductive analysis of 16,137 users’ tweets revealed three primary themes: a) Refuse, Refute, & Redirect Racist Rhetoric b) Stand Up vs. Know your Rights, and c) #ShutUpAndBeALeader. Based on the findings of this study, it appears that the dialogue regarding racism in the United States is quickly evolving. Instead of reciting the same refrain (i.e., racism no longer exists and systematic racism is constructed by Black people) seen in previous works, individuals in the current dataset refuted those talking points and clearly labeled the President as a racist. Additionally, though discussions of nationalism were evident in this dataset, the Stand Up vs. Know Your Rights theme was on the periphery in comparison to discussions of race. Perhaps, this indicates that some have grown tired of Trump utilizing nationalism as a means to stoke racism.
On June 25, 2019, following the United States Women’s Soccer team’s victory against Spain in the Women’s World Cup, soccer magazine Eight By Eight tweeted a video clip of an interview featuring team captain, Megan Rapinoe. In the video, when asked if she would go to the White House if invited, Rapinoe stated, “I’m not going to the fucking White House.” Rapinoe went on to say, “We’re not going to be invited.” The next morning (June 26), President Donald Trump posted a series of tweets in which he criticized Rapinoe’s statements. The full transcript of his tweets is provided below. Women’s soccer player, @mPinoe, just stated that she is “not going to the F…ing White House if we win.” Other than the NBA, which now refuses to call owners, owners (please explain that I just got Criminal Justice Reform passed, Black unemployment is at the lowest level…in our Country’s history, and the poverty index is also best number EVER), leagues and teams love coming to the White House. I am a big fan of the American Team, and Women’s Soccer, but Megan should WIN first before she TALKS! Finish the job! We haven’t yet…invited Megan or the team, but I am now inviting the TEAM, win or lose. Megan should never disrespect our Country, the White House, or our Flag, especially since so much has been done for her & the team. Be proud of the Flag that you wear. The USA is doing GREAT!
It is paramount to apply CRT and nationalism to the analysis of this social media discourse. The application of these frameworks acknowledges the dramatic shifts within the American cultural landscape that have enabled Donald Trump’s rise to power. As noted by Falcous et al. (2019), Donald Trump’s ascendance to the role of President of the United States emerged concurrently with “broader shifts in the U.S. political landscape” (p. 589). These authors argue that Trump’s rise in popularity was in lock step with the rise of the Alt-Right and the promotion of conservative ideologies, such as sporting exceptionalism, U.S. superiority and militarism, and White victimhood (p. 604). According to Kusz (2017), Trump’s rise has been enabled by several factors including Republicans blaming minorities for economic issues and changes within American culture, as well as media outlets and conservative think tanks driving narratives (such as the denial of systemic racism) that frame life as more difficult for White people in comparison to people of color. Additionally, Kusz (2017) notes that Trump’s rise has been the result of the promulgation of a dystopian worldview that frames ethnic and racial minorities as “folk devils” (p. 8). Kusz (2018) goes on to suggest: The way in which Trump won the White House—intentional scapegoating and stereotyping of racial and religious minorities, xenophobia, bullying opponents, and shamelessly stoking racial violence—suggests we are in the midst of a significant shift in the tactics, rationalizations, and narratives used to re-produce the normativity of Whiteness in American culture and society. (p. 116)
Literature Review
Critical Race Theory and Sport
Sport is often a context for the manifestation of societal issues such as racial injustice and inequity (Ebanda De B’beri & Hogarth, 2009; Rankin-Wright et al., 2016). When studying racism in sport, scholars have argued that larger societal structures that favor Whiteness are largely to be responsible for racism in sport (Ebanda De B’beri & Hogarth, 2009; Schmittel & Sanderson, 2015). Within these cultural structures that favor Whiteness, scholars argue, minority athletes, particularly Black athletes, are positioned such that they should not question the system and instead they should be grateful for their opportunities within that system (Ebanda De B’beri & Hogarth, 2009). This positioning renders Black athletes as apolitical complicit laborers, and by accepting “their lot,” Black athletes “resemble that wandering lost tribe, a fragmented remnant unable to organize itself to project the collective power it embodies but is afraid to use” (Rhoden, 2006, p. xiii). Therefore, the success of Black athletes can be seen as providing limited challenges to White supremacy and White masculine privilege within sport (see Ferber, 2007).
Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been established as a useful framework to investigate the presense of racism within society at large and in particular, the specfic issues of racism in sport (Hylton, 2005, 2010; Solorzano & Yasso, 2001). The main tenent of CRT holds that racism is an influential and pervasive force in society and has become so normalized that power differences between Whites and Blacks are reinforced to the point where such inequality is rarely questioned, particularly within American society (Agyemang & DeLorme, 2010). Furthermore, any expression of dissent around race and social structures is often hastily dismissed (Agyemang & DeLorme). CRT challenges the dominant ideology around race such as meritocracy and color-blindness by positing that American society is fundamentally racist (Hylton, 2010). Furthermore, CRT scholars posit that the rampant racism is invisible to White power holders who, “demand that Black players change to accommodate the existing culture” (Ebanda De B’beri & Hogarth, 2009, p. 104), thereby suggesting that Whitness is the standard to which all other cutlures must adhere (Agyemang & DeLorme, 2010; Harris, 1993).
Delgado and Stefancic (2016) outlined the tenets upon which CRT is based. First, they contend that racism is ordinary, and that everyday racism continues to exist in society. Furthermore, the authors argue that racism serves an important purpose for the dominant, White, group. The second tenet is based on the concept of interest convergence or material determinism where racism advances the interests of Whites who therefore have little incentive to eradicate it from society. Third, the authors present the “social construction” thesis, which states that race is not a biological or genetic construct, but rather a social construct where races are categories that society invents, manipulates, or retires when convenient for the dominant groups. The fourth tenant states that society, in response to the shifting needs of the dominant group, chooses to racialize different minority groups at different times. Fifth, the concept of intersectionality and anti-essentialism suggests that no person has a single, easily stated identity. Lastly, central to CRT is the importance of experiential knowledge and the uniqueness of voices of color as seen through counter-storytelling.
Within the realm of sport and social media, CRT has recently been applied by researchers to analyze Facebook commentary pertaining to the University of Missouri football player protests following racially charged incidents on campus. In their study, Frederick, Sanderson, et al. (2017) found that many users framed the athletes’ protests as manufacturing racism where it did not exist. Additionally, many individuals discussed how sport and advocacy were not compatible, while some went as far as to suggest that those who were engaging in advocacy should have their scholarships revoked. The authors argued that many comments reinforced notions of Whiteness, suggesting that Black athletes should be grateful for their opportunities and not question institutional hierarchies. Frederick et al. (2019) examined Facebook comments on ESPN’s Facebook page pertaining to the ESPYS speech made by LeBron James, DeWayne Wade, Chris Paul, and Carmelo Anthony in which the athletes discussed police violence against Black people as well as racial profiling. User commentary debated the existence of racism in the United States, as well as accountability for recent police shootings involving White officers and Black victims. Various comments also discussed what users perceived as the realities of violence and “accurate” crime statistics. Overall, the findings illustrated the complex nature of race relations in the United States as well as deeply ingrained stereotypes left unshaken by the activism efforts.
Since Twitter is President Trump’s preferred social media channel for communication, this study investigated responses to his tweets in response to Megan Rapinoe’s assertation that she was not going to the White House should the U.S. Womens National Soccer Team (USWNST) win the 2019 World Cup. Within his tweeted response to Megan Rapinoe, Trump called out NBA players and mentioned “Black unemployment” and the “poverty index.” Due to the overtly racialized messaging, it was worthwhile to examine whether users adopted or rejected the President’s rhetoric. Therefore, the following research question was employed:
Nationalism and Sport
Nationalism is defined as an individual’s positive attitudes and commitment towards their home nation (Kim & Billings, 2017; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Skitka, 2005). The term should not be confused with patriotism, which is pride in one’s own country without comparison to other countries (Billings et al., 2013). Nationalism raises the level of pride within a country so much that one presumes superiority of one’s own nation over all other nations. Those with nationalistic tendencies have blind obedience towards their country, refuse to accept any critique of one’s own country, are inclined to define one’s group by criteria of descent, race, or cultural affiliation, and are highly likely to make derogatory characterizations of other nations' populations (Blank & Schmidt, 2003). It should go without surprise that sport and nationalism are closely intertwined.
Many scholars have noted the relationship between sport and nationalism (see Billings et al., 2015; Billings & Tambosi, 2004; Butterworth, 2005, 2007; Devlin & Billings, 2016; Kusz, 2017, 2018; Rugg, 2019; Sack & Suster, 2000; Serazio, 2019; Silk, 2013). As Sack and Suster (2000) contend, sport is a rallying point for national pride and allows spectators to reaffirm their commitments to the beliefs, values, and myths of their cultural identity. This is never more evident than in the sport of soccer and with mega-events like the World Cup (Billings & Tambosi, 2004; Butterworth, 2007; Sack & Suster, 2000). Billings and Tambosi (2004) specifically studied the World Cup and noted that nationalism can impact a broadcast in that the commentators are more likely to discuss their home nation in a biased manner. This is important as research has shown that nationalism is increased through media consumption (Billings et al., 2013), meaning those watching the broadcast could be subjected to biased nationalistic tendencies from the media. In another study, Billings et al. (2015) analyzed Twitter comments concerning the 2014 World Cup. The authors noted a lack of nationalism in the Twitter comments, perhaps due to the notion that highly-identified fans of the sport are going to post on social media about their team through a more analytical lens than a nationalistic one. This finding is interesting given that highly identified fans are more likely to display nationalistic tendencies than non-highly identified fans (Delvin & Billings, 2016). Still, examining nationalism through an online medium is important as fans’ nationalism is impacted online through web articles (Kim & Billings, 2017). Kim and Billings (2017) could not, however, determine if fans’ nationalism is impacted through social media.
Focusing on America’s relationship with nationalism, it is important to mention that nationalism rapidly increased post-9/11 in response to terrorist attacks on American soil (Butterworth, 2005; Serazio, 2019; Silk, 2013). In fact, Butterworth (2005) argued that sport served to focus on terrorism and the militaristic American response, instead of diverting attention away from violent acts on American soil. For example, the New York Jets received almost half a million dollars (of the over $10 million donated from the Department of Defense to various sport teams) for thanking soldiers on their jumbotron screen (Serazaio, 2019). As a result, America quickly grew accustomed to excessive displays of nationalism in commercial sport (Butterworth, 2008, 2012). Military flyovers, calls to support the troops, and productions of the national media were engrained within sport (Butterworth, 2008). The National Football League (NFL), in particular, ramped up its relationship with the U.S. military through their Salute to Service campaign. The campaign’s goal was specifically designed to rearticulate the relationship between the military and the league. Further, the American flag became an important symbol for Americans and was more commonly displayed after 9/11 (Skitka, 2005). Sport utilized the American flag to “offer Americans the comfort of symbolically supporting the military without having to question the actions of the military” (Butterworth & Moskal, 2009, p. 425).
This strong call to blindly fall in line with American values and symbols was again heightened in the aftermath of Colin Kaepernick's actions in 2016. During a preseason football game, Kaepernick peacefully knelt during the national anthem in protest of the treatment of Black and Brown lives in America. For his activism, Kaepernick incurred racial abuse from stadium and online spectators, individuals took to burning his jersey, presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested he leave the country, and Senator Ted Cruz suggested that kneeling for the flag insulted both the American flag and nation (Schmidt et al., 2019; Trimbur, 2019). As a result of his activism, many parties politicized Kaepernick’s protest. Donald Trump fired back telling NFL owners to fire any player kneeling during the national anthem for disrespecting the flag. With regard to Kaepernick, Trump went so far as telling the owners to “get that son of a bitch off the field right now.” As a result, Trump changed the discourse from the athlete grievances towards the discussions of the national anthem, flag, and U.S. Military (Boykoff & Carrington, 2019). As a result, NFL owners and the Players Coalition, an organized group of players seeking social change, met and agreed to an 89-million dollar initiative to combat social injustice. One day later, to the shock of many of the players and protestors, the owners announced a new national anthem policy that would require players to “stand up and show respect for the flag and Anthem” (Rugg, 2019, p. 7).
The NFL protests continued throughout 2016 and incorporated more athletes outside of the league. One such individual was Megan Rapinoe. Shortly after Kaepernick’s protests, Rapinoe joined in, kneeling during the national anthem of her game with the Seattle Reign of the National Womens Soccer League (NWSL) (Trimbur, 2019). Her reasoning for kneeling during the national anthem is that she too experienced inequalities in America as she identifies as a lesbian woman. Rapinoe again knelt during the national anthem shortly after her initial protest, this time wearing a United States National Team jersey. In a content analysis of the Facebook comments on Rapinoe’s profile, Schmidt et al. (2019) noted that the comments were focused on discussing the role of athletes in society, Rapinoe’s representation of America (as she was a member of the United States Women’s National Soccer Team at the time of the study), and the freedoms offered to athletes and individuals in America (e.g. free speech). In comparing the comments received by both Kaepernick and Rapinoe on their Facebook pages, that authors noted that there were common themes between both athletes as many comments discussed the values of America and more specifically if Rapinoe violated them during her protests of 2016 (Schmidt et al., 2019).
As noted already, sentiments of nationalism were clearly evident in Trump’s Twitter response to Megan Rapinoe. Therefore, the following research question was employed:
Method
Researchers were most concerned with the Twitter commentary emerging in the direct aftermath of Trump’s tweets. Therefore, users’ tweets mentioning Trump (e.g. @RealDonaldTrump, Trump) and Rapinoe (e.g. @mPinoe, Rapinoe) were collected on June 26 of 2019, resulting in a total dataset of n = 16,137. Tweets were collected with a data extraction software known as Meltwater (www.meltwater.com), which is a dedicated online social media analysis platform that supports Boolean searches (e.g. Trump AND Rapinoe) of social media (predominately Twitter), and online news articles.
An inductive thematic analysis was employed to examine the dataset. The first step involved employing the qualitative software Leximancer to analyze the data. Leximancer conducts thematic and semantic analysis on written words as well as visual text (Bal et al., 2012). Leximancer is an effective tool to analyze blogs, user comments, and social media posts as its analysis begins with only a few seed words and then can go on to analyze vast sets of texts that contain a large number of concepts (Bal et al., 2012; Frederick et al., 2019). As a qualitative software, Leximancer does not generate counts for its thematic outputs. Rather it presents themes in terms of their relevance and connectivity (i.e., relative importance) within the larger data set. Leximancer has been employed recently (and extensively) within the realm of sport communication research (see Blaszka et al., 2016; Frederick et al., 2019; Schmidt et al., 2019).
The size of the current dataset did not allow for traditional human coding of each data point. Therefore, Leximancer was utilized to conduct the initial thematic analysis of the data. It is important to note that Leximancer does not name themes based on context. Rather, the software names a theme based on its most prominent descriptor. However, all content within a Leximancer-generated theme has the same context (see Frederick et al., 2016). It is the responsibility of the researchers to dig deeper into the Leximancer analysis to discover the nature of the dialogue within each theme to accurately reflect its nuance and context. In the current study, the researchers performed an extensive and immersive review of the tweet content as coded via Leximancer. Following that extensive review, the researchers renamed the themes to more accurately capture the nuance and context of the discourse within them (see Schmidt et al., 2019).
Results
Three primary themes emerged from the inductive analysis including (a) Refuse, Refute, & Redirect Racist Rhetoric, (b) Stand Up vs. Know your Rights, and (c) #ShutUpAndBeALeader. Leximancer produces a connectivity score for each theme and the score reflects the degree (equivalent to degree score in network analysis) to which the theme is connected to the other concepts in the map. Each primary theme identified within the Leximancer analysis had strong connectivity (i.e., relative importance), indicating moderate to strong relevance within the dataset. A second part of the analysis involves hits which denotes the number of text blocks in the project associated with each theme. For the results pertaining to number of text blocks and connectivity, please consult Table 1. The Refuse, Refute, & Redirect Racist Rhetoric theme was the most prominent within the data set, indicated by its high connectivity score (91.67%). This was followed by the #ShutUpAndBeALeader theme, which had the second highest connectivity score (36.17%). The large number of text blocks within this theme was indicative of users often editorializing Trump’s tweets (i.e., quoting Trump’s tweets and adding commentary to it). Finally, the Stand Up vs. Know Your Rights had the third highest connectivity score (9.87%), making it the third most prominent theme in the dataset.
Leximancer Connectivity Scores and Hit Values for Top Themes.
The Leximancer theme map (provided in Figure 1) is heat-mapped, meaning that “hot” colors (red, orange, and yellow) denote the most important themes, and “cool” colors (blue, green, and purple), denote themes less central (i.e., peripheral) to the discussion. Only the primary (i.e., most important) themes are reported herein. Tweets are provided verbatim. Themes will be discussed in detail as they relate to the research questions.
Leximancer Themes.
RQ1
Research question one was concerned with how individuals discussed race in response to Donald Trump’s tweet. Trump clearly struck a nerve with many users as his references to the National Basketball Association (NBA) players and owners, Black unemployment, and the poverty index were not warmly received. Comments within the Refuse, Refute, & Redirect Racist Rhetoric theme highlight the rejection of Trump’s messaging. Examples of tweets within this theme include “What do black NBA players, black unemployment, or criminal justice reform have to do with Megan Rapinoe and the USWNT,” “He listed criminal justice reform along with black unemployment and poverty as stuff that should cause NBA players to support him,” “And what do black NBA players have to do with criminal justice reform or poverty,” and “So the relationship between the NBA and prison reform is what!” Users also commented on how Trump’s tweets moved through various topics. For example, “this went from megan rapinoe, to the NBA, to criminal justice reform, and finally to black unemployment rates.” In that regard, users were taking note of Trump’s utilization of Twitter to attack, deflect, and present various topics in order to test his audience (see Lakoff, 2017). Additionally, individuals pointed out that racism is indeed still prevalent in the United States with comments such as “Police brutality rising.” Users also called Trump out for his overtly racist rhetoric. “You are so blatantly a racist and woefully ignorant, a truly dangerous combination,” “I don’t care If black unemployment goes to zero, they still know you are a lifelong racist and father of Obama birther movement,” “You’re a disgusting inhumane joke & swearing on Twitter nobody wants to be around a criminal traitor racist,” and “The fact that you took the NBA’s possible change of the term owner and went straight to your pseudo negro assistance program confirms you’re a racist POS” are examples of that dialogue. Individuals also made cultural references when highlighting Trump’s racism. For example, “And your NBA /criminal justice/employment comments are STRAIT (/s) out of Archie Bunkers wheelhouse.” All of these firmly situated the discussion around race, even though the catalyst for the Twitter tirade (i.e., Rapinoe) was White. It was the President who brought race into the discussion.
RQ2
Research question two was used to guide the analysis into how individuals discussed nationalism in response to Donald Trump’s tweets. Within the Stand Up vs. Know your Rights, theme, users were much more divided. Some users showed support for Rapinoe, while others resonated similar nationalistic sentiments with those that Trump employed in his tweets. For example, users debated how one should properly show love and respect for their country (“If she loves this country she should respect the flag and our national anthem” and “Singing our anthem is not the only way to show love of country”). Additional examples of this debate included “You should leave politics aside while playing for your country BE PROUD OF THE COLORS YOU THROW ON YOUR BACK!” AND “She has a first amendment right to say whatever she wants because the flag & this country allow it.” Along similar lines, users debated the merits of expressing dissent. For example: For anyone of them to go on a national stage and to disrespect the country they represent and for anyone to continually bash and downgrade our President whoever that is at the time is a moronically learned aspect of their lives!”
It is important to note that content within the third prominent theme, #ShutUpAndBeALeader debated a lot of issues surrounding Rapinoe’s (a soccer player) assertation that she would not go to the White House. Some of the commentary within this theme discussed Trump’s presidency and his treatment of marginalized groups. “You literally shit on LGBT individuals day and night and expect Megan Rapinoe to want to go to your dusty musty ass house” is an example of that dialogue. Other expressed frustration with Trump’s willingness to call out an athlete on Twitter instead of focusing on what were perceived as more pressing matters. For example, “With all the crazy shit going on at the border and with Iran, this President makes time to talk about a soccer player not wanting to go to visit his orange ass.” Finally, users posted messages that were general rebukes of Trump. These messages effectively demonstrated solidarity with Rapinoe. “Trump really needs to stfu with this shit and except that no one likes his ass being in the White House,” “You’re #pathetic trump All resisters follow,” “MORE LIES ABOUT ACCOMPLISHMENTS #LyingTrump,” and “#notmypresident” are examples of that dialogue. Within this theme, there was limited debate regarding issues of race and/or nationalism.
Discussion
While Donald Trump’s tweets were directed at Rapinoe and her statements regarding visiting the White House, Trump also took an opportunity to attack NBA athletes in his messaging. This aligns with the work of Lakoff (2017), as Trump attacked Rapinoe, while simultaneously engaging in deflection. Additionally, by discussing race in his response to Rapinoe, Trump was introducing what Lakoff refers to as a “trial balloon” to test his audiences’ reactions to a divergent topic. In the midst of these tactics, Trump was also engaging in positive self-presentation (see Kreiss, 2017). Specifically, with regard to race, Trump made the following statement: Other than the NBA, which now refuses to call owners, owners (please explain that I just got Criminal Justice Reform passed, Black unemployment is at the lowest level in our Country’s history, and the poverty index is also best number EVER). Stern utilized his White male identity to assert power, maintain control, and reinforce the status quo of Whites as the brain trust of the organization, while blacks were confined to their bodies and positioned at the mercy of Whites. (p. 128).
Clearly, it appears that Trump views the NBA’s often progressive stances on various social issues as an affront to White privilege, specifically when it comes to giving Black athletes substantial power and voice. In bucking the trend of being complicit laborers (see Rhoden, 2006), these athletes are challenging structures that favor and promote White masculine privilege (see Ferber, 2007), which is clearly viewed as a threat. In that sense, Trump’s messaging aligns with several tenets of CRT as outlined by Delgado and Stefancic (2016). Specifically, Trump’s messaging fits well within the second tenant of CRT (i.e., interest convergence), in that he uses race in his messaging to promote his “good works” as President, which benefits his reputation and public image. In reality, what he has done is little more than place a bandage on an open flesh wound. It appears that eradicating racism is not the goal. Rather, Trump is touting what he has done for disadvantaged groups (i.e., “Black unemployment”) in an effort to appear magnanimous. In that sense, this message also aligns with the third tenant of CRT (i.e., race is socially constructed and leveraged when convenient).
What was evident in the dataset, was that users primarily rejected Trump’s messaging. Additionally, users were quick to call out the President regarding the racist overtones of his tweets. At the heart of CRT are those who are willing to question the relationship between race, racism, and power (Delgado & Stefancic, 2016). In effect, users were engaging in these practices via Twitter in response to Trump’s overtly racist rhetoric. In that regard, it was users that engaged their own activist dimension (see Delgado & Stefancic) by calling into question Trump’s projections of White privilege, and his attempts to maintain power differentials in his rhetoric involving minority athletes. This finding of individuals asserting their activist dimension on behalf of athletes via social media both intersects and diverges from previous research exploring CRT, athletes, activism, and social media commentary. Frederick, Sanderson, et al. (2017) found that some social media comments encouraged advocacy among athletes. This is similar to the current study, as multiple users encouraged Rapinoe and showed support for her stance and actions. The findings of this study run counter to previous research as well. Frederick et al. (2019) found that many users were quick to deny the existence of systemic racism when responding to athlete activism via Facebook. Some went as far as to claim that racism no longer exists in the United States. However, it is perhaps encouraging to see that in the current work, most of the commentary pertaining to race was quick to recognize the racist undertones of the President’s inflammatory rhetoric. In fact, most dialogue (as exhibited through the high connectivity of Leximancer map) centered around race and was primarily exhibited via users refusing and refuting the underlying vitriol that was clearly evident as one reads between the lines of the President’s tweets.
With regard to nationalism, as many scholars have noted, sport and pride in one’s own nation have a strong relationship (e.g. Billings et al., 2015; Billings & Tambosi, 2004; Butterworth, 2005, 2007; Devlin & Billings, 2016; Sack & Suster, 2000). The dataset analyzed in this study proved this relationship was still strong. From a nationalistic standpoint, users were grappling with and battling between nationalism and patriotism. Still, it should be noted that nationalism can come through in social media. While some scholars noted that Twitter may not be a space for nationalism during a broadcast of a sporting event (Delvin & Billings, 2016), social media was certainly a platform where nationalism appeared as demonstrated through the discussion between a star player and the President of the United States.
An interesting finding is that individuals were still discussing the national anthem and flag, despite Rapinoe’s comments and actions having nothing to do with the national anthem or the flag. There are two possibilities for this phenomenon. The first possibility is that users are referencing Rapinoe’s actions in 2016, when she knelt during the national anthem as a member of the United States Women’s Soccer Team. Perhaps users are recalling those past actions by Rapinoe and using them again to criticize the athlete. The other explanation is that users may be taking their information directly from Trump’s tweets. Trump mentioned respecting the flag and America as a country in his tweets. As a reminder, Rapinoe never mentioned the flag or country in her comments, just a potential visit to the White House by her teammates and her; and in fact, she had been standing for the national anthem and flag as required by U.S. Soccer. Some users followed Trump’s lead by unquestionably claiming that she is disrespecting the flag and the country. Instead of diving into the issues Rapinoe is discussing such as LGBTQ acceptance and gender equality, the discussion inevitably came back to the flag and the country. Overall, the flag, national anthem, and America as a country are still the talking points for being critical of athletes who protest, even when the protest is simply indicating they would not visit the White House.
It is important to reiterate that many users were supportive of Rapinoe in their tweets. Even those that were coming to Rapinoe’s defense often cited the 2016 Kaepernick and NFL protests, linking her current form of protest to other recent athlete activism events. Users exclaiming that Rapinoe (and other athletes protesting during the national anthem) have the right to be critical of America, what the flag represents, and the President, are speaking in terms related to patriotism. They may have pride in their nation, but that does not mean they should be blindly following their President, not questioning his actions or polices nor forgoing comparisons to other nations (Billings et al., 2013). Just as the flag was the point of nationalism for those critical of Rapinoe, the 2016 protests are the point of patriotism for those in support of Rapinoe. The 2016 sport protests were seen as a key moment when athletes and the public were discussing race, gender, freedoms of Americans, and roles of athletes and citizens of the United States (Schmidt et al., 2019). While there was a difference between the users displaying nationalistic and patriotic values, the similarity lies in that there are clearly defined points of focus for which users develop their arguments.
There are cautiously optimistic lessons that one can draw from this study. First, it appears that the dialogue regarding racism in the United States is quickly evolving. Though Trump frequently promulgates rhetoric and media narratives that frame Black individuals as folk devils responsible for the failures of society (see Kusz, 2017, 2018), this dataset indicates that many individuals may no longer be buying that argument. Instead of reciting the same refrain (i.e., racism no longer exists and systematic racism is constructed by Black people) seen in previous works (see Frederick et al. 2019; Frederick, Sanderson, et al. 2017), individuals in the current dataset refuted those talking points and clearly labeled the President as a racist. Second, though discussions of nationalism were evident in this dataset, the Stand Up vs. Know Your Rights theme was on the periphery in comparison to discussions of race. So, while Trump often invokes nationalism and White victimhood (see Falcous et al., 2019) to promote division and isolate minorities who engage in silent/peaceful protesting (i.e., kneeling during the National Anthem), that call to arms did not appear to be the focal point of users’ discussions. Perhaps, this indicates that some have grown tired of Trump utilizing nationalism as a means to stoke racism. As the landscape of the country shifts and systemic issues are once again amplified and brought to the surface of public consciousness, this tactic may no longer be as in vogue as it once was. At least in this dataset, users saw it for it was, racism hidden behind the veil of national pride. Therefore, refuting racism is where users focused their energy.
Finally, there was ancillary content that emerged from this dataset that was outside the realm of both race and nationalism. According to Meraz and Papacharissi (2013), social media allows individuals to introduce narratives and reframe issues. In this study, with regard to the #ShutUpAndBeALeader theme, one could argue that users were not reframing an issue as much as they were refocusing the issue. After all, Megan Rapinoe, a proud member of the LGBT community, was the individual rebuking Trump. Therefore, users were directing their messages at Trump and his treatment (or mistreatment) of marginalized groups. In some instances, users brought up a questionable track record primarily with members of the LGBT community. Based on users’ responses, it is clear that current rhetoric (i.e., racist and nationalistic) was not the only item resonating with individuals. Users were quick to reference other missteps that Trump has made and link them back to a profound piece of Rapinoe’s identity.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
This study is not without limitations. First, this study only examined commentary across one small cross-section of time. Future research should employ a longitudinal approach, examining commentary across a larger window of time. Second, this study explored commentary on Twitter. Other social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have proven to be useful tools for individuals to craft narratives pertaining to contested and divisive issues. Future research should explore dialogue pertaining to the Megan Rapinoe and Donald Trump feud across multiple social media platforms to achieve a nuanced view of the emergent rhetoric. Finally, traditional media was not examined in the current study. It would be wise for future research endeavors to compare commentary across traditional and social media to gain a firmer grasp on the various narratives that exist.
Conclusion
Once again, an athlete’s protest (while relatively small), effectively drew the attention of the American President who took to Twitter to unleash his ire not only at the athlete, but at other sports and athletes as well. In his tweets, Trump introduced issues around race in the United States (knowingly or not) and brought forth his own notion of nationalism. Social media users reacted swiftly to refute Trump’s statements, to call out his racist rhetoric, to denounce his policies and record related to race and minority groups, and to call out his use of Twitter as a vehicle for deflection. With that said, some users also showed support towards Trump’s notion of nationalism and his condemnation of Rapinoe. Interestingly, this group supporting Trump was focused on the dissenting athletes not being patriotic or violating their nationalistic ideals. Seemingly, this group reverted to similar discussions of the 2016 national anthem protests by athletes to discuss this scenario, despite there being little in common between Rapinoe’s comments and the protests.
Throughout this analysis, we were provided yet another glimpse into the key debates and discussions that continue to rage in a country whose leader wades regularly into the murky and contested waters of race and nationalism in an effort to stoke discord. These efforts to flare tensions, promote division, and amplify extremist views by the President are particularly troublesome, considering the current fractured conditions within the United States. Protests are taking place across the nation in support of the Black Lives Matter Movement and in response to the recent deaths of Black civilians George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery at the hands of White police officers and civilians. The very roots of systemic racism are once again dominating newsroom debate and dinner table conversation. Additionally, we are in the midst of a global pandemic (i.e., COVID-19) where the United States currently leads the world in both total cases and deaths. Invoking nationalism and fanning the flames of racism and hate at a time like this simply ignores the realities of a fractured nation which has yet to address generations of minority suppression and which has yet to come to terms with its standing in the world.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Ann Pegoraro is now affiliated with University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
