Comments on: Guy Môquet

by: Betty C.

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:11:30 +0000

It’s like so many symbolic gestures — the intentions are probably good, but people may feel they’ve done their “bonne action” and forget to think about or, as far as teachers go, deal with other aspects of the Resistance any other time during the year. Which reminds me, my family forgot that yesterday was the day to turn our lights off for five minutes, from 7:55-8:00 pm in France, as an environmental measure…’nuff said.

By the way, I write a blog whose title you can see above and have only discovered yours recently. Strange…they are very different, though. I have been enjoying reading your political musings and I hope you will drop by the French heartlands (where not quite so much political musing goes on) from time to time.

by: Sergeant Howie

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:10:15 +0000

Well, as you said , Guy Môquet never resisted against Nazi oppression. He was arrested by French police for infringing a French law. Remember that at the time of his arrest, USSR and Germany were still allied. And he was not one of these communists (such as Tillon) who started resisting right after the Debacle and not after Barbarossa.

So, you could come with a better symbol. Such as Mandel. But Mandel was a short fat old guy, not a sexy Jamesdeanesque youngster. And jewish (the very reason of his refusal of Spears offer, he felt that a Jew could not unite the French would-be resistants behind him,, something sad and probably true).

by: ange scalpel

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:43:31 +0000

Is it the right of a President to impose the reading of a text, however well motivated, in schools ? As far as I know, no. If the parliement had decided that Guy Mocquet’s letter had to be read in schools and lycées, there would have been a law, and we would have had to obey it. In the present case, it is merely a “com” operation. Mr Guiano yesterday on TV explained that it is the duty of a teacher to read in class what is on the program and that a teacher has no right to refuse to do what’s on the program. But who decides what is on the program ? As far as I know, this has to be decided by a conseil National des Programmes of the Ministry of Education and various other institutions which are consulted, included the CNESER. see http://www.education.gouv.fr/syst/cnp/default.htm
The comparison between the whim of a prince and the obligation to teach Voltaire is outrageous. Of course Voltaire has to be taught, and he is on the program. But this has nothing to do with Guy Mocquet’s letter, which is not on the program, and which, by the way, if the objective is to celebrate the French communist resistance, is fairly tender minded , compared to, e.g. the group Manouchian of the “Affiche rouge” and other communists. Why not Jean Cavaillès , a mathematican and philosopher who did more to Resistance than the poor Guy Mocquet, would was only 17? ( see http://www.ordredelaliberation.fr/fr_compagnon/187.html and the movie by Melville l’Armée des ombres)? But even if these had to be celebrated , it is not the role of the President of the Republic to impose this celebration in class. Even if he asked us to read La Fontaine and the fable of “Les grenouilles qui demandent un roi”, we would be entitled to refuse. ( I suppose my English friends see easily that this fable is about frogs who want a king)….

by: Tim

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:09:08 +0000

Silly mistake: I cut his short life even shorter. I’ve now given him another year. The Edith Cavell reminder is very good. You’re absolutely right these terrible events need to live on into the future generations
but how to present them? And why selective? Why Bastille Day and not the September massacres - or even the execution of Louis XVI?

by: Autolycus

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:44:13 +0000

I had assumed it was part of Sarkozy’s initial gestures of political inclusiveness. I’ve been interested on occasions by the ways in which the inheritors of the different strands of WW2 resistance (never mind those who acquiesced in Vichy collaboration) have blanked each other’s experiences (see, for example, the highly partisan display at Metro Colonel Fabien, and the ambiguity of Communist attitudes and activities until the invasion of the Soviet Union - which is why, incidentally, the assassination that led to Moquet’s execution was over a year, not a week, after his arrest). Perhaps Sarkozy thinks this signifies some sort of reconciliation, though another point of interest here is that it was the Vichy Minister of the Interior that selected the people for retaliation, to forestall the execution of an even more random collection of people.

But this does seem an oddly old-fashioned form of consciousness-raising. Suppose Gordon Brown suggested there should be an annual reading in British schools of Edith Cavell’s famous last letter? These things deserve to be remembered and honoured, but can be counter-productive when rammed down people’s throats.