# Guy Moquet



## Imperialista_Yanqui

I am unable to find online exactly what the political upheaval about reading this child's letter in class is based in. I read an English translation, and it didn't seem partisan in any way. i haven't found a forum discussing this so I ask here. What is the left's( if those are indeed the ones objecting) contention that the public reading of this letter will do or promote?


----------



## Kajjo

Good question. I do not see the sense in reading the letter, but I also do not see how the left can be so strictly opposed to it. Maybe it's just politics and we do not need to understand it...

Kajjo


----------



## Arrius

What Imperialista Yanqui says rings a very faint bell with me, but I fail to identify the news item to which he refers or the country of its provenance. Could he please enlighten us?


----------



## papillon

*IY* - it is generally good form, when opening a new thread, to provide at least the minimum amount of background so that everyone else can follow. I don't know how many people outside of France have heard of Guy Moquet. I haven't until about 10 minutes ago.

For some background on this start here. Here are a couple of quotes:


> ...some teachers have been angered by what they see as presidential interference in the classroom, saying that Moquet should not be treated as an isolated icon but discussed in the full context of the war...





> The left <...>  has also accused the president and his centre right UMP party of trying to appropriate another symbol of the left...


----------



## Imperialista_Yanqui

One argument for not including that information would be to discourage  people from pontificating that were not knowledgeable about the subject. Often these forums degenerate.People who were familiar enough with the subject to discuss it were given enough information to contribute.


----------



## cuchuflete

Yawn.  A politician, who also happens to be the President of a country, chooses to commemorate the death of a martyr, who, coincidentally, was of a political group
diametrically opposes to that of the politician.  In any time and in any country we would expect-

Those of the martyr's political beliefs to rally to the memory of one of their own, while
accusing the politician of insincere motives...

Supporters of the politician/President to point to the act as a sign of non-partisanship, decency, patriotism...

Burrocrats, whatever their political leanings, will find fault with any government action that does not have their prior input and permission.

Imagine that President Bush, had he the imagination to do such a thing, were to ask
for a moment of silence (for prayer, no doubt) to honor the memory of the Abraham
Lincoln Brigade.  That would be in keeping with his praise for American action in defense of democracy, as the Brigadistas risked, and often lost, their lives in defense of a democratically elected republic.  

His political opponents would find the act cynical and hypocritical.  (With or without just cause...that's the stuff of politics, after all.)

His political allies would rally behind him, while holding their noses at the stench of the memory of those fine young men, some of whom were of the left.

The national teachers' union would protest government interference in the classroom.


Change parties and create a different, opposing scenario:
Bill Clinton honors Teddy Roosevelt, Conservative Republican, for creating the National Park system and modern concerns for what we call ecology today.

Right-wingers would use the event to castigate Clinton for making too much federally owned land into National Parks, thus denying the timber and mining industries their public subsidies.

Left-wingers would praise the act, as a sign of responsible, concerned leadership, ignoring the rest of TR's philosophy, including "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

The national teachers' union would protest government interference in the classroom.


Yawn.


----------



## Imperialista_Yanqui

Thanks for clearing that up.Seems rather ridiculous when you put it in context. if the scenarios are accurate reflections of the situation, seems to be much ado about nothing.


----------



## alazay

I think this is more an issue of nationalism. To put it more in context, imagine if George Bush or some other prominent Replublican publicly praised Eugene Debs (A famous American Socialist that ran for President in 1912) or some other anarchist from American History. 

Furthermore, imagine that he required that every child in America read the speech that Eugene Debs delivered before he was sent to prison for his social activism and union organizing and so forth. 

Obviously, this would be political suicide and would never happen. First of all, very few Americans even know any socialists, anarchists, communists, or revolutionary figures from our own history. Secondly, Bush would be most harshly criticized not by the left (they would laugh at him however) but by his own fanatical supporters for supporting the positions of a left-wing radical. In the United States there is no left, no socialist/communist party, no real unions anymore so there is really no one to pander to. 

The reason the left in France are angry about this is that this is obvious pandering. Sarkozy (an avid right-winger/pro big business type) is using a hero of the left for political purposes, and it seems very disingenuous. He is trying to co-opt a symbol of the left, and associate himself with the lore of Guy Moquet. In their eyes (the left that is), this is an extremely cynical PR stunt, and I agree with them. 

Thanks,
Al


----------



## Imperialista_Yanqui

I'm pretty ignorant about this issue, hence my question. I understood that the child was, although a communist, a member of the Resistance, and thus part of the patrimony of all Frenchmen.The letter appeared apolitical to me, and I would have imagined that such a humanizing portrayal of communists after the legacy of Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin would be welcomed. That's where my confusion came in.


----------



## cuchuflete

The protests by some of the French left are not about the content of the letter, or about
the particulars of the life of Guy Môquet.  They are entirely directed at what they see as
an act of political cynicism by Sarkozy.  I say some of the French left, because this is not, apparently, a unanimous viewpoint.  It seems that the head of the French Communist Party, Marie-George Buffet, after initial criticism praised the presidential declaration.  So much for a united front.

Was Sarkozy being cynical?  He's a politician, so that possibility should not be discounted.

There is additional context that might make both the left and right uncomfortable.
The young man was handed over for execution by a functionary of the  Vichy government; he had already been arrested for political activities.  The French Communist Party, prior to the Nazi invasion, was taking its orders from Stalin, who in turn was briefly allied with Hitler.  That all changed with the invasion of Russia.

Môquet's story is a very sad one.  It's probably useful for school children to learn about it.  It may lead them to a healthy distrust of politicians of both left and right.


----------



## Dom Casmurro

Alazay says it all. Imagine George W Bush in this T-shirt.


----------



## Arrius

Imperialista_Yanqui said:


> One argument for not including that information would be to discourage people from pontificating that were not knowledgeable about the subject. Often these forums degenerate.People who were familiar enough with the subject to discuss it were given enough information to contribute.


 
In that last comment I fear you are wrong: you gave far too little information. From the details kindly furnished by others, I have now identified the story, which I had in fact seen (in the original French without need of translation), but did not associate with your first post because a) you did not say in which country it occurred, and b) I was assuming that it was some private letter written by a child and read out to the class by a spiteful teacher to the great embarrasment of the young writer provoking a scandal taken up by the press. 
I would have had something to say about this had you made the topic clear at the outset or even after I had asked you in vain for clarification, but your attempt to exclude the opinions of many others by obfuscation has thrown cold water on any enthusiasm I may have had to do so. A shame, as I might have found this an interesting discussion. The uninitiated could have looked up some reference on the story if they wished to take part, and any who caused the discussion "to degenerate" could have been eliminated by the judicious use of the moderator's delete button.


----------



## Drechuin

Imperialista_Yanqui said:


> I'm pretty ignorant about this issue, hence my question. I understood that the child was, although a communist, a member of the Resistance, and thus part of the patrimony of all Frenchmen.The letter appeared apolitical to me, and I would have imagined that such a humanizing portrayal of communists after the legacy of Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin would be welcomed. That's where my confusion came in.



The child was not really a member of the French resistance (AFAIK), but a communist activist. He was killed as an act of retalitation after the death of a german officer (and by the way was chosen by a French minister, who prefered to send to death communists rather than good frenchmen).
So, saying that Guy Moquet was a symbol of the Resistance or of the nationale identity is quite a distortion of reality.

The most common reason I've heard from teachers opposed to the reading was that the letter is not historically interesting, although tears-inducing. So reading it out of the blue doesn't make any sense, it would have been better to tell the teachers to read it when they study WWII (so the children can have some context, about the Resistance, The Vichy's government, the role of the communist party...).
But it would have been less impressing on TV.
So they thought it was not their job to participate to a mediatic event with no pedgogical value.


----------



## avok

Imperialista_Yanqui said:


> One argument for not including that information would be to discourage people from pontificating that were not knowledgeable about the subject. Often these forums degenerate.People who were familiar enough with the subject to discuss it were given enough information to contribute.


 
I dont think it takes a loooooooooooong process to get familiar enough with Guy Moquet and then to make contribution. 

The French dont like to be intervened (but they intervene a lot) and I guess teachers found it banana-republic-ish being forced to read Guy's letter in class. I dont think any 17 year-old in France would actually feel any compassion or shed tears for Guy's letter.


----------



## Montaigne

avok, you are wrong. Most of the kids feel compassion simply because it's a sad story and a moving letter.(source : French newspapers and TV reports).


----------



## Gaspare Lu Gattu

Montaigne said:


> avok, you are wrong. Most of the kids feel compassion simply because it's a sad story and a moving letter.(source : French newspapers and TV reports).


 
I agree. (source : my classroom)


----------



## Stiannu

I didn't read the letter, but I can sense that the whole question has something to do with the historical and political consideration of anti-nazi Resistance in some countries.
I'm not really pro-nationalism and quite uninterested in patriotic symbols, but I find that if a sense of belonging to one's own country can be built on anti-fascist/anti-nazi resistance, and consequently foster more general anti-totalitarian and pro-democracy orientations, that could be a good start. The point is: can we consider resistance (even when the groups were socialist or communist) as a shared heritage, or would it be a misunderstanding and appeasing view of the political action of those groups ("they weren't committed to the nation, they were committed to class struggle and socialism...")?
In Italy quite the opposite is happening - unfortunately - and some right-wing parties have recently broken the consensus around anti-nazi resistance that was there for the first decades after WW2. A lot of ministers and politicians now refuse to honour the "April 25th" anniversary of liberation because of its alleged partisan (leftist) connotation. I even heard a friend of mine complaining while I was singing "Bella ciao", because he felt it was a communist song.
I was quite shocked. I thought it was still considered just an anti-nazi song.


----------



## Imperialista_Yanqui

To arrius and all other readers:
I'm very sorry , in reading over my comment I see that it could be interpreted as unfriendly and even obnoxious. This was not my intention, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. 
Cordially,
Murray


----------



## Jocaste

Apparently, it was not a promotional act for Sarkozy etc ... but then, if it was not a political manoeuvre, why all those TV cameras coming with Ministers & co ?  (and not only with ministers, but everywhere)
I saw in the _Zapping_ (a french show) an old man say to the Minister of Education : "_Tout ce pour quoi Guy Môcquet est mort, vous êtes en train de le détruire, et vous voulez aujourd'hui honorer la mémoire de Guy Môcquet ? Mais vous ne manquez pas de culot ... monsieur le Ministre !_" 
For me, this has nothing to do in "Sarkozy's hands" : he sort of appropriates the History ... a too media-friendly President to me.


----------



## Dom Casmurro

Well, let me tell you this. I have just read Guy Moquet's letter, and am still disturbed about it. It's a farewell text written by a 17 year old boy during the war, addressed to his mom, his little brother and his dad, soon before his death, about his own imminent execution. By reading that and by letting myself be moved by it, I understand the arguments against Sarkozy and fully sympathize with them. Let me add that I even hope that this populist move of his will backfire eventually, and will cost him dearly as far as his political project. Taking advantage of a letter like that is something that makes me sick. I would never expect that from a French President, and I always thought that Latin America, my own region, was home of all the most creative, scoundrelish populist manoeuvres. I was wrong. Frankly, I just can't see any reasonable gain Sarkozy is expected to get by exploring people's emotions in such a primary and melodramatic way. He has just taken office, no election is in sight, but he still seems to be campaigning very hard to win some ghost election that only he, like a delusional madman, can see. It's very disgusting. It's an insult to French society, French traditions, French history, French sophistication, and an outright disrespect for the memory of Guy Moquet himself and, of course, the Moquet family. Sarkozy seems to be forging a posthumous alliance with Guy Moquet, without taking into account that Moquet couldn't be farther away from everything he reprepresents as a politican. It's pathetic.

P.S.: I know of a former Head of State who did things very similar to that. His name is Fernando Collor de Mello, ex-President of Brazil. It's the same style: Collor wouldn't hesitate to grab left wing flags in a very populist way, just like Sarkozy. Collor was impeached, after his populist and corrupt scheme was unearthed...


----------



## Jocaste

Dom Casmurro ... I didn't dare write it like this, but I fully agree with you.
And according to The New York Times it seems that this child has become the icon of Centre-Right  (wasn't he communist ... yeah, pathetic)


----------



## alazay

Casmurro, 

You shouldn't be surprised. Most politicians are sociopaths to some degree. This is the very essence of the current state of political affairs. We shouldn't romanticize the French or any other country for that matter. There are opportunists like Sarkozy looking to capitalize on some horrible tragedy or another everywhere. Look at Rudy Guiliani, using 9/11 to enrich himself and run for president in the United States. 

These are the oldest tricks in the book they just get recycled and repackaged. 

Here's hoping the French see through Sarkozy's political machinations, 

Al


----------



## Dom Casmurro

I would like to stress one more time the resemblance between the political styles of Sarkozy and Collor, which is not confined only to the centre-right leanings that are shared by both. Collor's claim, in the beginning of his term of office, that he would "astonish the left and enrage the right" ("Vou deixar a esquerda perplexa e a direita enraivecida"), might be used as Sarkozy's motto. The resemblance is so striking that I can imagine, two years from now, Sarkozy facing the same overwhelming rejection that Collor had to cope with.


----------



## balibamba

sorry I haven't finished my message!

hi!

this letter is very interesting and sad
BUT it's only a wish of Sarkozy , sure it has sense but why must teachers read this letter the same day l, I know we don't have to forget what happened but why can teachers read it during the lesson oh history about resistance (I don't know the word fo résistance in english lol) ?
Sarkozy likes this letter, finds it very important (I agree it's an important letter) but if Sarkozy 'd like chocolate french would have to cook chocolate each day?
don't be ridiculous!


----------



## Jocaste

balibamba said:


> I know we don't have to forget what happened but why can teachers read it during the lesson oh history about resistance (I don't know the word fo résistance in english lol) ?


I see your point, but Guy Môquet wasn't resistant, he was communist ...
Not really the same, even if what happened to him and his fellows is horrible, of course.


----------



## Drechuin

balibamba said:


> BUT it's only a wish of Sarkozy , sure it has sense but why must teachers read this letter the same day l, I know we don't have to forget what happened but why can teachers read it during the lesson oh history about resistance (I don't know the word fo résistance in english lol) ?



Because it doesn't look so good on TV, if everybody do it a different day.


----------



## papillon

avok said:


> ...I dont think any 17 year-old in France would actually feel any compassion or shed tears for Guy's letter.


Well, I am not sure about the school-age children, but the French national rugby team seemed very emotional after Bernard Laporte, their trainer, read the letter out loud as they huddled. This was to whip them into the patriotic shape before they went to do battle with the Argentinian team.


----------



## Dom Casmurro

papillon said:


> Well, I am not sure about the school-age children, but the French national rugby team seemed very emotional after Bernard Laporte, their trainer, read the letter out loud as they huddled. This was to whip them into the patriotic shape before they went to do battle with the Argentinian team.


So... did it work?


----------



## Bonjules

Dom Casmurro said:


> So... did it work?[/quote
> 
> No, they lost.
> 
> See, the whole issue is still more complicated, and I wish that I as a
> non – Frenchman wouldn’t have to point that out.
> Guy Moquet was not only selected for the list to be killed by a French
> minister (rather G. M. than a ‘good Frenchman’), he was arrested in
> the first place by French police, hunting for communists.
> The painful fact is that the Nazi occupation was not unwelcome for
> all  of French society; conservative segments not only cooperated
> with the occupiers, but took the opportunity to ‘clean up’ France,
> to get rid of troublesome elements, such as ‘communists’ or generally ‘unwelcome’ ones
> like Jews, etc.
> This is still very much an open wound and nobody really wants to talk too
> much about this. Including the teachers, many of which are undoubtedly aware
> of the historical context. So they say ‘interference in my teaching schedule’and so on.
> It also means that Sarkozy is getting away with this brazen ‘simplification
> of history’ for propagandistic purposes.


----------



## Dom Casmurro

Bonjules said:


> See, the whole issue is still more complicated, and I wish that I as a
> non – Frenchman wouldn’t have to point that out.
> Guy Moquet was not only selected for the list to be killed by a French
> minister (rather G. M. than a ‘good Frenchman’), he was arrested in
> the first place by French police, hunting for communists.
> The painful fact is that the Nazi occupation was not unwelcome for
> all of French society; conservative segments not only cooperated
> with the occupiers, but took the opportunity to ‘clean up’ France,
> to get rid of troublesome elements, such as ‘communists’ or generally ‘unwelcome’ ones
> like Jews, etc.
> This is still very much an open wound and nobody really wants to talk too
> much about this. Including the teachers, many of which are undoubtedly aware
> of the historical context. So they say ‘interference in my teaching schedule’and so on.
> It also means that Sarkozy is getting away with this brazen ‘simplification
> of history’ for propagandistic purposes.


Interesting, and thanks for enlightening this thread. I'm not a Frenchman either, but much as I agree that the French should be dealing with this issue on their own, we must be reminded that France has a certain tendency to reach out to the world whenever their _affaires domestiques_ are tainted with moral and ethical overtones. The _affaire Dreyfuss_ is but one example of such a tendency. 

Regrettably, we lack the great French polemists of the past, the likes of Zola and Sartre, but yet we must rely on that old French tradition of amplifying debates over universal issues, making them relevant, meaningful and engaging. I guess Imperialista Yanqui, to whom we owe the existence of this thread, was sensitive to the potentials of the Guy Moquet affair as a source of such intricate, inflammatory debates that would capture world attention, very much like the Dreyfuss one. 

Of course, besides the historical background referred to by Bonjules and others on this thread, this issue is also about populism and attempts by certain politicians to gain popular support through tearjerking rhetorics, "simplification of history" and exploitation of the youth.


----------



## yannalan

Guy Moquet was shot by the german army, he was the son of a communist MP and along with him, some prominent union leaders, most of them communist too, were shot.
The french minister who chose them was Pierre Pucheu, who was, before the war, a leader of "comité des forges", that's to say a Union of Industrial Bosses. That was also a sort of social revenge.
Guy Moquet had written other letters, claiming for soviets everywhere, and end with capitalism, but, strange, these were not to be read...
It is true he was arrested by french anti communist police squads before the German come, but honestly, after the attack on Russia, I think he would have been a resistance fighter.
Each year there is a big ceremony on the spot where they were shot, organized by the Communist Party, and for them, it is a sort of sacrilege hearing Sarkozy speak about Moquet.


----------



## argentina84

yannalan said:


> Guy Moquet was shot by the german army, he was the son of a communist MP and along with him, some prominent union leaders, most of them communist too, were shot.
> The french minister who chose them was Pierre Pucheu, who was, before the war, a leader of "comité des forges", that's to say a Union of Industrial Bosses. That was also a sort of social revenge.
> Guy Moquet had written other letters, claiming for soviets everywhere, and end with capitalism, but, strange, these were not to be read...
> It is true he was arrested by french anti communist police squads before the German come, but honestly, after the attack on Russia, I think he would have been a resistance fighter.
> Each year there is a big ceremony on the spot where they were shot, organized by the Communist Party, and for them, *it is a sort of sacrilege hearing Sarkozy speak about Moquet*.


 
And I completely understand them. Je suis indigné. I cannot believe he had the cheek to do it. And I did hold back tears when I learnt about Moquet and read his letter.


----------



## cuchuflete

We seem to have two broad categories of possibility here, and people select one or another based on their prior conception or opinion of Mr. Sarkozy:

1- The more popular opinion of participants in this thread— A right-wing politician
chooses to honor a young Communist, murdered through a collaboration of the French right-wing stooges of the WW II years and the Nazi occupiers.  This must be an act of cynicism, political pandering at its worst.

2- A right-wing politician chooses to act as a statesman, rather than as a partisan politician, and honors someone of an opposing political philosophy in an effort to praise loyalty to country.  This view has found next to no support among the thread participants, who appear almost uniformly anti-Sarkozy.

I don't know which is the more accurate view, but I have to wonder what would have happened if Ségolène Royal had won the election and ordered the same letter to be read.  Would this have been perceived as inherently honest and decent, albeit the act of a politician.  Would the schoolteachers have protested governmental interference?


----------



## Dom Casmurro

cuchuflete said:


> I don't know which is the more accurate view, but I have to wonder what would have happened if Ségolène Royal had won the election and ordered the same letter to be read. Would this have been perceived as inherently honest and decent, albeit the act of a politician. Would the schoolteachers have protested governmental interference?


If she had ordered the reading without furnishing any context whatsoever on Guy Moquet's background and the circumstance of his death, then I would have no choice but to regard her as a populist. Populism is at stake here, not ideology, as your post seems to be implying.


----------



## Bonjules

Dom Casmurro said:


> If she had ordered the reading without furnishing any context whatsoever on Guy Moquet's background and the circumstance of his death, then I would have no choice but to regard her as a populist. Populism is at stake here, not ideology, as your post seems to be implying.


I must agree with that,  it wouldn't  make a difference.
I think we can all agree that it is extremely impressive and touching, the courage
with which Guy Moquet faces his death. 
But it did happen in this historical context. If you take his letter, written as a private statement to his family, and make a public ( and so a political ) issue out of it (as President of the Republic, how could it not be), I think
you have to be honest and get into all these painful issues of  collaboration, loyalty,
national honor etc.
To not do so would  leave anybody, regardless of political affiliation, open to the suspicion of just playing for  emotions, or doing the ‘populist thing’ as Dom C. says.


----------



## Stiannu

The context is surely important, from an intellectual and historical point of view, but the State (and France is a good example) has a lot of de-contextualized rituals and symbols that stand for national identity, unity and patriotism (all values I'm not particularly committed to, I admit). To understand the cultural and political role of the personalities who entered the Panthéon in Paris, one would need to read treaties and essays, to study history and literature in depth... but one doesn't. One just goes to the Panthéon to admire the personalities that previous _députés_, emperors and presidents have decided to include in the monument to the republican state.

So the point is: can a letter written by a young communist killed during the occupation be turned into a political symbol? And, furthermore, what is at stake if the proposal comes from a president who is clearly opposed to the political views of Moquet?


----------



## Dom Casmurro

Stiannu said:


> The context is surely important, from an intellectual and historical point of view, but the State (and France is a good example) has a lot of de-contextualized rituals and symbols that stand for national identity, unity and patriotism (all values I'm not particularly committed to, I admit). To understand the cultural and political role of the personalities who entered the Panthéon in Paris, one would need to read treaties and essays, to study history and literature in depth... but one doesn't. One just goes to the Panthéon to admire the personalities that previous _députés_, emperors and presidents have decided to include in the monument to the republican state.
> 
> So the point is: can a letter written by a young communist killed during the occupation be turned into a political symbol? And, furthermore, what is at stake if the proposal comes from a president who is clearly opposed to the political views of Moquet?


This is an interesting approach to the issue. Indeed, the personalities that the French State selects to be its official role models are chosen in the course of a thorough debate over their deeds. In that debate, all the historical circumstances surrounding such deeds are duly pondered by the bulk of the French society and approved by whoever is in a position to add new mortal remains into the Panthéon burial place. A high degree of national consensus must be reached for anybody to be buried in that nationalistic temple. And of course, the illustrious one who is admitted into the Panthéon must be unanimously considered as a glory of France. Being a martyr of some ideological cause scarcely related to the glory of France is just not good enough to _be_ there.

Of course, Guy Moquet is very far from having a place in the Panthéon. This is not due to the fact that he was just a boy about to die who wrote an incredibly courageous letter to his parents, but because his martyrdom took place in the name of an international communist cause, not in the name of a French national cause. His being a communist was the only reason for his execution. 

Any attempt to forge a hero's aura around Moquet cannot get away from that historical fact. As we have seen, this is exactly what the Champs Elysées has tried to do. By skipping that "little" detail of Moquet's short biography, Sarkozy has proved to be a shallow politican in search of some kind of appeal among the youth. This kind of leader is usually bound to have a short political career.


----------



## Stiannu

Dom Casmurro said:


> A high degree of national consensus must be reached for anybody to be buried in that nationalistic temple. And of course, the illustrious one who is admitted into the Panthéon must be unanimously considered as a glory of France.


 
Mmm... I wouldn't be so sure of that. Think of the controversy around the inclusion of Emile Zola in the early 1900s. More generally, I tend to think that, from the 5th Republic on, every President uses the _pathéonisations _to reinfonce his own vision of history and French identity. Such a power to create national symbols is a huge one, indeed. 



Dom Casmurro said:


> his martyrdom took place in the name of an international communist cause, not in the name of a French national cause. His being a communist was the only reason for his execution.


 
Well, I have two observations about this:
1. the freedom of expression is usually considered an important value in democratic societies. Now, France loves to call itself "the country of democracy" or "of human rights", so I think people who died for the expression of their political views, legitimate even if not widely accepted, can be considered heroes sometimes. In Italy, fascism killed or jailed people like Gramsci or Matteotti, whose political views (communist for the first, socialist for the second) were not universal but well represented in Italian society. We commemorate these personalities because they were victims of a repression that is considered unacceptable for the contemporary idea of freedom and democracy. 
The same works for some victims of the 70s-80s Italian political terrorism, or for the people killed by mafia. These people did not necessarily work for the State or their activity does not stand as a symbol of national identity in itself (journalists, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, trade-unioners...), but the State honours their memory to reaffirm the right of writing, investing, selling and trade-unioning in a free and non-violent society. The same could be for Moquet - I surely overestimate Sarkozy's good intentions, but the thing could work from a theoretical point of view.
2. I don't think that teachers and leftist intellectuals, who in France opposed this "use" of Guy Moquet's memory, actually share your view. They must be criticizing the "distortion" of this memory (for electoral and populistic purposes), and the removal of historical issues like collaborators to Nazi occupation, which would maybe make the right-wing government feel too unconfortable. But they wouldn't reduce the heritage of Moquet to a merely partisan activism with no contribution to the glory of France (whatever this may mean), like you seem to do.


----------



## Dom Casmurro

Stiannu said:


> Now, France loves to call itself "the country of democracy" or "of human rights", so I think people who died for the expression of their political views, legitimate even if not widely accepted, can be considered heroes sometimes.


You have a point here. As you rightly put it, being _pantheonized_ is not just about nationalism; it's also about universal values cherished by the French. "Les Français ont la particularité d'être universalistes", said a French author. 


Stiannu said:


> But they wouldn't reduce the heritage of Moquet to a merely partisan activism with no contribution to the glory of France (whatever this may mean), like you seem to do.


I didn't suggest that his heritage should be reduced to his communist affiliation. I just said that his communist affiliation caused his execution, and this particular information should have been shared with the public at large when a decision was made for the letter to be read in schools. My point is, Guy Moquet is primarily a communist hero, and has been such since the early forties, when he died. Suddenly, in 2007, a conservative politican decided to forget about the person that he was, by reducing him to the letter that he wrote. Moquet is no longer himself, he is just that letter. He would have been nobody to the eyes of Sarkozy, had that letter not made people (myself included...) shed tears over it.


----------

