Sir, - In its way it is reassuring to know that the doctrine of unrepentant prejudice is alive, kicking and still trots its merry way beside that of invincible ignorance. Both were prevalent in many of the letters and articles critical of Pearse and the 1916 Easter Rising under this heading.
Even at this late stage it may not be out of place to record some relevant facts.
It was Connolly, not Pearse, who forced the issue of a rising.
The Rising and all it represented was endorsed in 1918 by the people of Ireland in an overwhelming electoral majority.
The Irish Volunteers were formed in response to the formation and arming of the Ulster Volunteer Force, the establishment of the ("treasonable"!) Provisional Government of Ulster with Carson as "president", and the threat of civil war by them in opposition to Home Rule for the country.
From the outset Home Rule was intended to be for all Ireland. Politically manoeuvred sectarianism in Ireland, leading to partitionism, was a last ditch Conservative strategy in that party's (ultimately successful) plan to destroy the governing Liberal Party in England.
Partition was foisted on Ireland by the British Parliament Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which instituted, and gave phoney de jure status to, a sectarian political entity which became Northern Ireland.
Emasculated Home Rule (1914 Bill) and the Government of Ireland dual-state system were not acceptable to the vast majority of the people.
Connolly and his tiny Citizen Army were committed to a rising in 1916. If it had not taken place, there would certainly have been an attempt before the war ended - if that failed, almost certainly before 1945.
To try to rationalise in terms of today's values such contemporary facts as these, bearing on the period 1916-1921, is nonsensical. But likewise there are relevant and enduring principles that get overlooked.
The imperialist principle that a conquered and occupied people should surrender its identity to the overlordship of a conqueror - commonly known as "might is right" - has been around for a long time. But it has also been resisted for a long time.
A well-known instance of this confrontation occurred at Thermopylae in 480 BC, where it was demonstrated that the principle of liberty is perceived to be the more enduringly correct.
There have been many corroborative examples since Thermopylae. In recent history one of the most dramatic and far-reaching was the American revolution under George Washington, which was also opposed by a majority of his fellow Commonwealth citizens.
The number of successful revolts/risings which sought popular support by publicising their intentions in advance has been noticeably small throughout history. It is, therefore, not entirely to be wondered at that, in common (perhaps, for we do not have statistics, and even if we did it wouldn't matter) with 1916, many Greeks fought with the Persians, and many of Washington's fellow members of the Common wealth, of Kosciusko's fellow Poles, of Bolivar's fellow South Americans, of de Gaulle's fellow Frenchmen, and so on, initially failed to support them.
It may well be that those who attack 1916 and Pearse on these and other grounds know that they put the case for "might is right" in opposition to that of liberty. If that is so there is no point discussing it with them. If they simply close their eyes to the fact, then it is time they opened them.
The path to liberty is seldom one of peace and rosebuds, particularly where impeded by the interdicts of an imposed, alien regime. It is, nevertheless, universally held to be a just and desirable course. It is not to be met by emasculated, limited concessions, such as the (suspended) Home Rule Bill of 1914.
On the other hand most people would, I suspect, agree that oppression, particularly foreign oppression, is impossible to justify. - Yours, etc.,
Eoin Neeson, Blackrock, Co Dublin.