Madam, - I agree with Kevin Myers's analysis of President McAleese's UCC speech on 1916, except for the implication that any 1916 symposium worth its salt required to be graced by Ruth Dudley Edwards and himself (An Irishman's Diary, January 31st & February 1st).
It is perfectly reasonable to argue that Irish nationalism is not, or was not, narrow and exclusionary if you back up your assertion by evidence, a point surely self-evident to a distinguished academic lawyer.
President McAleese tried to support her claim by looking at the manifestations of Irish nationalism outside the State. But the test of the narrowness or breadth of nationalism is what is done to, or not done for, people who differ from the decreed nationalist template within the State or society - a point surely self-evident to a distinguished academic lawyer.
And on that score the "achievements" of Irish nationalism are drearily familiar and limited, and were largely covered by Kevin Myers. The notion of a theoretical variant of Irish nationalism embracing Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter persists in some Manserghian Neverland. But the record tells us that since independence the practice of Irish nationalism has been sectarian (i.e. Catholic), narrow and exclusionary.
The President seems to deal with these inconvenient facts by skipping blithely from 1916 to circa 2000.
Am I being partitionist in focusing on the record of the 26-county State? Let's look North of the Border, then, where - surprise, surprise - we find that the Provisionals' campaign was sectarian in both its collective atrocities (Teebane, Enniskillen, etc.) and its individual atrocities - remember all those persons murdered after they left the RUC reserve?
I don't begrudge the President her role as corporate cheerleader for the nation. And of course she is entitled to opine on 1916 or any aspect of Irish nationalism. But it is glib and meretricious to peddle sub-de Valeran tribal fantasies that are totally at variance with the facts. - Yours, etc,
COLETTE ROBINSON, Hollybrook Road, Dublin 3.
Madam, - The President has extolled the unmandated politics as violence in 1916 and forgets the considerable achievements of constitutional democrats like John Redmond. This sadly shows her prejudices and is totally inappropriate to her office. She is playing with fire. Above all, such attitudes are insulting to unionists.
We as modern democrats should hang our heads in shame and remember all those who died as a result of 1916 - also, the Protestants who were driven out, went underground and lost pride in their traditions in what was to become a theocratic state after 1921. Thanks to Kevin Myers for pointing this out. - Yours, etc,
JOHN ROCHFORT, Waterford.
Madam, - Kevin Myers asks with exasperation some simple questions regarding the events of Easter 1916 that have tended to be ignored by many commentators. But perhaps he will take another look at his own writings on a recent "war of liberation".
Mr Myers asks what right the 1916 rebels had to kill innocent Irish people in Dublin. Fair question; but shouldn't we also ask what right the US had to kill innocent Iraqi people (remember "Shock and Awe"?) in order to overthrow a leader it could not tolerate?
Mr Myers points out that none of the 1916 rebels had ever stood for parliament, suggesting that they were not interested in achieving their goals by democratic means. Good point; but should we not also ask why the US government ignored the will of the UN and overwhelming world opinion by invading Iraq?
Finally, Mr Myers wonders how the 1916 rebels could possibly call the butchers of Belgium their "gallant allies". One is entitled to wonder therefore why Mr Myers's confident support of the brutal invasion of Iraq is not rattled by visions of George W. Bush hand in hand with Saudi royalty or, more importantly, George Bush senior's support during the 1980s for a man who, when he had ceased to be useful, became known as "the Butcher of Baghdad". - Yours, etc,
REDMOND O'CONNELL, Templemore Avenue, Dublin 6.