"Others see the 1916 Rising as a bloody act by a few unelected individuals."
And he's quite right - some do - he doesn't and he "really knows Irish history."
Some people think it's a shame the Empire collapsed – some people would like to see dog-fighting come back – or hanging or corporal punishment – or even burning witches (they really knew how to put on a good show in those days)
The vast majority in Ireland at the present time say just the opposite.
Instead of looking for historians, why not just respond to the facts
He also said, "The Rising has been claimed by many as the founding act of a democratic Irish state. The rebels were determined that decisions affecting Ireland would be taken in Ireland, not in the British parliament in London."
He also said, "The Rising destroyed the Home Rule project. For 40 years, a group of Irish politicians had campaigned for an arrangement that would keep Ireland inside the British Empire, but would allow some decisions be taken by Irish members of an Irish home rule parliament.
The Rising killed off this idea. After 1916, people called for recognition of the Republic that had been declared during the Rising", and "What is indisputable is that 1916 was a hugely significant event that transformed the focus of Irish nationalism, increased divisions and made people more politically aware and active.
The 1916 Rising came to be seen as the first stage in a war of independence that resulted in the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 and, ultimately, the formal declaration of an Irish Republic in 1949."
You praised this feller to the skies when you thought he was agreeing with you - What's your point.
Why just select the bits you like – are historians reliable only when they agree with you?
So far you have failed to produce one single historian who does.
Jim Carroll