(ThyBlackMan.com) I love Sister Ronda Racha Penrice. My peers over at Your Black World reminds us that, “in ‘black political speak,’ when someone mentions that they love someone, that means that they are about to crack a walnut over their forehead.” Right now, it’s more than fitting that someone should ‘go upside her head’.
In a recent article, published by Sister Penrice, she lays out a phenomenal overview of the impressive contributions made to the development of the USA by African Slaves and their descendants. Penrice is a very well accomplished academic and clearly has a keen aptitude for history and writing, as demonstrated by her contribution to the well-known Dummies series (‘African American History for Dummies’). Therefore, I shall not mince words when such 
an accomplished professional commits such a grave offense and with so much arrogance.
Before I continue any further, let’s define the errors. Then, we shall identify where Penrice has committed them.
According to Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (peer-reviewed):
If you quote someone, but select the quotation so that essential context is not available and therefore the person’s views are distorted, then you’ve quoted “out of context.” Quoting out of context in an argument creates a straw man fallacy.
2) Straw Man
You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
The tendency to look only for evidence in favor of one’s controversial hypothesis and not to look for disconfirming evidence, or to pay insufficient attention to it. This is the most common kind of Fallacy of Selective Attention…
Committing the fallacy of confirmation bias is often a sign that one has adopted some belief dogmatically and isn’t seriously setting about to confirm or disconfirm the belief.
In her article, Penrice unequivocally claims that Frederick Douglass “was mistaken in his assertion that the Fourth of July did not belong to African-Americans”. She later reiterates this claim, stating “Frederick Douglass was not correct when he declared that ‘The Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine.’” She even uses her accusations against Douglass to suggest that his alleged “oversight of history” has contributed to the loss of identity and culture of ignorance which “plagues us to this day”.
According to MS Office word-count feature, Douglass’ speech, offered on July 5, 1852 at an event commemorating the signing of the Declaration of Independence, is no less than 10,483 words. Yet (correct me if I’m wrong), the only words Penrice chose to quote from the speech was “The Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine” (no more than 8 words). Her negation of more quotes from the speech should at least raise a red flag, in terms of whether or not she has provided an accurate representation of the context.
In case Penrice is just as guilty as I am of failing to read his speech in its entirety, prior to referencing it, I’ll do her a service; Mr. Douglass, in no uncertain terms, concedes that he is the least knowledgeable on any of the events leading up to the States obtaining their freedom. Thus, he declined to even speak on those events in any great detail, stating (at about a quarter-ways into the speech):
“Friends and citizens, I need not enter further into the causes which led to this anniversary. Many of you understand them better than I do. You could instruct me in regard to them. That is a branch of knowledge in which you feel, perhaps, a much deeper interest than your speaker. The causes which led to the separation of the colonies from the British crown have never lacked for a tongue. They have all been taught in your common schools, narrated at your firesides, unfolded from your pulpits, and thundered from your legislative halls, and are as familiar to you as household words.”
If Douglass went out of his way to express his lack of knowledge on the causes, then the only conclusion is that his main argument, as he had presented it, was not contingent upon those causes. Subsequently, Douglass cannot be charged with committing an oversight of history, as he did imply that an understanding of the history was not necessary to support the claim he would establish on that particular day. Therefore, I contend that Douglass is not guilty of committing an oversight of history. It follows that his speech cannot be used as a marker of the anti-intellectualism that plagues Black America, unless one can retort that the knowledge of said history is indeed necessary to establish his claim that the Fourth of July did not belong to African-Americans. I’ll allow Douglass’ own words to support his claim and let you be the judge.
Shortly, after conceding his lack of knowledge, he states:
“Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine.”
Voila!
Clearly, Douglass had made an indictment relative to the integrity of the euphoric celebration. He was in no way suggesting that the Fourth of July did not belong to African-Americans, from a suggestion that they had offered no contributions to the rise to Independence. Therefore, Penrice is indeed guilty of taking Douglass’ words out of context.
More damning than such an elementary error in reasoning is the appearance that she seems to have deliberately committed it. I support this notion by the fact that his statements, which paint a clear picture of the context of his speech, immediately precede her extremely limited extract of the speech. Unless she had not read those few sentences leading up to her cherry-picked quote, she could not have missed them. I contend that the quoted paragraph does sufficiently provide the proposition of the speech and should serve as the basis of her rebuttal. So, if she did not deliberately omit these remarks, then she effectually places her reading skills into question and causes me to scrutinize her drivel with much more diligence than I care to give to it. (Perhaps that makes it a ‘win-win’ for TheGrio.) At any rate, she failed to state the proper context of the argument.
Nevertheless, her history refresher is just that. She provides us with 2 pages of African-American history (her niche), but does not address Douglass’ indictment that African-Americans did not enjoy the rights and privileges laid out in the D.O.I. That is the essence of his argument, not that African-Americans were unworthy, unqualified, or otherwise should not share in the jubilee. Penrice did not refute his claims. Thus, she has committed a straw man fallacy.
As I have previously suggested, her actions seem to have been deliberate. For I can conceive no other motivation for her gross oversight, other than to justify ‘Why the 4th of July belongs to all of us’. Remember, we have learned that “committing the fallacy of confirmation bias is often a sign that one has adopted some belief dogmatically and isn’t seriously setting about to confirm or disconfirm the belief.”
Ultimately, Penrice and TheGrio have engaged in intellectual dishonesty at best, and libel at worst. I vehemently contend that this disgraceful conduct is indeed connected with the culprit that continues to plague too many of us to this day, as characterized by Carter Woodson in ‘The Mis-educated Negro’ (1933). For this, Penrice and TheGrio should apologize to all of us. Nonetheless, their assault on a most revered abolitionist, all for the sake of promoting their lame bias is immoral. They could have achieved their missions to promote Independence Day and school us on African-American history, without slandering that man’s legacy. They owe him an apology.
Staff Writer; Joe Kellam
For more written by this young talented man, do visit; Universal Advocate.
Also connect with him via Twitter; Super_Advokate.