Sir, - Some people may have considered Kevin Myers's reply to my letter of October 9th as an intemperate rant, but I prefer to see it as further proof of his willingness to experiment with stream-of consciousness writing.
It would be tempting to suggest that his reply generated more heat than light, but, sadly, it was more a case of smoke and mirrors. He is correct to say that in 1918 the republicans won a vast majority of seats with only 48 per cent of the vote, but this was not the result of republican perfidy.
Rather, it is in the nature of Britain's first-past-the-post system. Tony Blair, for example, has never won a majority in terms of votes but commands a massive majority in the House of Commons. Mr Myers is right to say that some republicans engaged in electoral fraud in 1918, but neglects to point out that they did not have a monopoly on such practices. It was, after all, a Unionist politician who later urged his constituents to "vote early and vote often".
Mr Myers is unable to answer my central point: that he and his revisionist chums share the same approach to the past as the Provisional IRA. Both sides see Irish history as a morality tale in which the good guys fought the bad guys. True, they differ over the identity of the good guys, but their approach is fundamentally the same. They are not interested in explaining what actually happened. Instead they prefer to pontificate on what they think should have happened.
Mr Myers may believe that replacing the maxim "two legs good, four legs bad" with "four legs good, two legs bad" is the height of intellectual sophistication, but I hope he'll excuse me if I don't applaud.
By all means let us deconstruct the myths of nationalist Ireland. Let us acknowledge the terrible things done in the name of the Irish people between 1919 and 1921. This should not, however, lead us to lionise those who fought for the Crown, or turn a blind eye to their often brutal and murderous actions. - Yours, etc.,
Dr Jason Mc Elligott, St John's College, Cambridge, England.