Letter-writing and avoiding the blindingly obvious

I always find it interesting to read the Letters section of The Irish Times, mainly because it contains the unfiltered voice of at least some of the citizens of the south. Admittedly, the citizen who reads and writes into The Irish Times is not your ordinary Sean, but it still tells us what’s on the mind of those who read the newspaper, as distinct from the people who write it. 

And in today’s edition, there is a group of letters all discussing the suggested royal presence at the 1916 centenary celebrations.  Until recently all was going swimmingly, Enda was telling his people how it’d be a milestone in the relationship between our two countries, blah blah blahdey  blah. And then Professor Diarmuid Ferriter of UCD wrote in and said it’d be no such thing, it’d be a distraction from the commemoration of heroic men who gave their lives in order that Ireland would be self-governing.

This morning there’s a string of letters taking Ferriter’s side in the argument. Tom Cooper of Templeogue declares “I believe the Government decision to invite British royalty to the centenary commemoration of the 1916 Rising is a deliberate attempt to use the glamour and cult of celebrity monarchy to distract public attention away from the ideology and ideals of the women and men of 1916”.  Felix M Larkin of Cabinteely wants to know why they don’t “consider extending an invitation to a representative of the House of Hohenzollern in view of the reference in the 1916 Proclamation  to ‘our gallant allies in Europe’ ?”  Mary Kay Simmons weighs in: “It is inconceivable to me that we should commemorate this Rising and the subsequent deaths that resulted from it and the conflicts that followed as if rule by the British Empire had been a benign agreement between two nations”.And finally Mike Scott of North Ballybough  believes we are “acting out a strange echo of life in Ireland 100 years ago. We have had the royal visit, and a mild reawakening of pro-British sentiment. We have an understanding and empathy for those who decided then to rush to the British army recruiting stations. Constitutional nationalism dominates the political agenda, but is showing signs of ideological exhaustion. A  Sinn Féin-led opposition is growing in strength”.

Hardly the line you’ll hear coming from the coalition seats in the Dail or the editorial page of The Irish Times. And yet, despite the critical tone adopted by all of the letter-writers, one glaringly obvious and confoundedly difficult matter is raised by none of them: partition. It really is risible that people who see themselves as rightly critical of government hypocrisy fail to see the hypocrisy of ignoring a situation that would have appalled the women and men of 1916.

Doublethink or what?