At LAST! Read this article – it finally gives a lethal injection to the phoney image of Patrick Pearse as a blood-crazed loon – or as Ian Paisley Jr told me in an interview: “He was a madman!” And to think this is from the pages of the Indo! Maybe there is hope after all…
John Redmond spoke nonsense when he described the Irishmen in the British Army as an (Irish) National Army.
There were no Irish National Divisions, Brigades or Regiments in the British Army nor a single
Btitish ship commanded, officered and manned in the British Navy. Kitchener made damned sure of that.
The insensitivity of British military commaners to the national sentiment of Irishmen was remarked upon by Lloyd George.
And after that definitive proof maybe someone can have a go at the question of his repressed interest in little lads!
Well done, gio. For a while there I was worried you might have become unpredictable…
In my young day everybody liked little lads and now I know grandfathers who are afraid to take their grandchildren to the swimming pool. It’s easy to be snide and sneery about a poem taken out of context.
I couldn’t agree more, fiosrach. The hysteria over child abuse has poisoned relationships between children and adults.
fiosrach
I have learned that snide and sneery is the standard here, so I have decided to wallow in the mud for a bit with the rest.
A bit of innuendo and rumour is far more effective than boring facts.
Did your grandad write poems about kissing little lads on the lips?
My son has kissed me on the lips, are you saying I am a paedophile?
This is pure hatred gio, your true colours are showing at last.
jessica
Yes I am saying you are a paedophile!
Please stop being ridiculous.
I am not being ridiculous gio, you are being very offensive.
jessica
I have only pointed out what Pearse wrote (undeniable) and the well established theory about his repressed attraction to boys.
If your son’s teacher was writing poetry about kissing boys on the lips would you be comfortable with that? Be honest.
But I am making a wider point about the level of debate here.
My (deliberately provocative) remarks about Pearse brought down the ire of Jude, yourself, Wolfe tone and fiosrach.
Yet it is the kind of rumour mongering routinely wheeled out here about others, including Archbishop Welby, Stephen Fry Bob Geldof, Mountbatten just off the top of my head.
So I am just trying it to see how it feels.
Don’t attribute emotions to me that I don’t have, gio. If there ever comes a day when my ‘ire’ comes down on you, I promise you it’ll be unmistakeable.Your little snippet about Pearse kissing boys on the mouth is the twenty-first century version of Bernadette Devlin’s political career suffering because she had a child out of wedlock (20th century) and Parnell’s because he had a thing with Kitty O’Shea (19th century). All three have absolutely nothing to do with their political aspirations or performance. Although of course the fact that he had a squint would mean that no thoughtful person should listen to a word he said…
Nope sorry to disappoint you Gio but you didn’t anger me with your comments about padraig Pearse. Don’t flatter your good self. In fact I had a chuckle to myself seeing how far you will go to defend some people. It reveals a lot about you. Put some cream on that btw.
Oops touched a nerve!
A strange comparison I must say but you are entitled to dismiss his alleged proclivities if you wish.
Wouldn’t want any dreadful ire to come upon me.
There you go again, gio – I promise you, all my nerves remain untouched by human hand. As to dismissing alleged proclivities: I’ve no doubt those weighed heavily with the men and women who put their lives on the line under his leadership.
Wolfe tone
Which people have I defended and how far did I go?
I don’t see how you can assess the man while trying to ignore fundamental aspects of his character.
After all the link between repressed sexuality and violence is well known. Throw in a bit of religious fanaticism and it creates an interesting picture.
As I have said before the leaders of the rising are not sacred cows.We should be able to say these things and question their character without being accused of “pure hatred”.
As for it weighing heavily on his comrades,did not Macdonagh and Plunkett express their concerns to Pearse about his dodgy poetry?
You’re one up on me there, gio, re MacDonagh and Plunkett commentary on Pearse’s poetry. Would a line that failed to scan properly also disqualify him? I think if you read the literature of the nineteenth/twentieth century, you’ll find lots of blood-soaking-the-earth-renewal stuff and lots of dear-child-I-kiss-your-sweet-face stuff. Both to our ears sounds a bit weird, but then they’d find some things about us weird too, I expect. But leaving the signatories aside, I’m interested in your repressed sexuality-violence link which you say is ‘well known’. Well-known by whom? And is well-known the same as scientifically and medically linked? I’ve known people who appeared to be sexually repressed (right, you can never tell – except with Pearse, of course) and who were also fearful and wimp-like, and some very violent people who were also very active sexually. Just wondering how that fits in to the well-known link you mention…
Is that the British disease? Poetic license dear boy.
fiosrach
Well if you say so.
They should put that on the memorials:
“Patrick Pearse; Probably not a paedophile!”
Oops! Looks like someone has touched a nerve?
Throw allegations and innuendo at Irish republicanism as you wish; they are big and hairy enough to take it. But throw allegations against ‘other decent criminals/royalists/unionists/celebrities’ and all of a sudden it’s out of order? Don’t ask questions of the state establishment and its cheerleaders as they arnt big and hairy enough? Just like their victims perhaps.
wolfe tone
I don’t know what you are on about.
I never mentioned the establishment at all.