Sir, - This is my first time ever writing to a newspaper but I must respond to Mr William Hunt's letter (August 4th) in which he attacks the memory of one of the men who helped fight for his right to free speech.
Firstly, Pearse and the rest of the leaders knew they could not win a military victory. How could they? They were fighting one of the best armed forces in the world. They knew they would be killed either in the fighting or, after capture and a "trial", at the end of a rope. I am unaware of any "fascist" in this world, living or dead, who would willingly and knowingly put his head in a noose.
Secondly, the purpose of the Rising wasn't to drive the English into the sea in that fateful week. It was to awaken the Irish from their coma-like stupor. The Irish had no sense of nationhood, no awareness of themselves as a people, exemplified by the fact that in April 1916 the brilliant Tom Barry, one of the leaders of the Flying Columns, was fighting in Africa - for the British Empire! It is clear that the Rising achieved its sole objective. It shook the Irish enough to awaken them to themselves and their Irishness.
Thirdly, Mr Hunt claims that "thousands of people died to achieve rather less than could have been achieved by intelligent and spirited negotiation". I am amazed at such breathtaking naivety. The British Empire did not understand words - it understood war. This is not pseudo-IRA speak but the British had to be forcibly removed from almost all of the land they illegally occupied at one time or another. Ireland has been gifted with some of the foremost "intelligent and spirited negotiators" (e.g. Charles Parnell, Isaac Butt and perhaps Daniel O'Connell) and they didn't further the cause of Irish freedom by any noticeable amount.
Mr Hunt goes on to completely reject all words uttered/written by Pearse. An astute move - now he can justifiably back up his argument that Pearse was "bloodthirsty" and that the modern problems in the north of this island are somehow the "products" of 1916! Has Mr Hunt ever considered the fact that British occupation (then and now) might have something to do with it? I wonder has he ever been educated to the fact that British soldiers captured during the Rising were released because it was considered "unfair" to shoot prisoners?
A nation's independence is not too precious to be received as a gift and needn't always be won by blood but sometimes that's what it takes, e.g the US, several African nations, occupied countries during the Second World War, etc. - Yours, etc.,
Vincent Keogh, Clondalkin, Dublin 22.