I think that Mr. Astier (22 Nov., 'We want to be French!') is entirely mistaken in his view, and would like to direct him to an article that is posted elsewhere on this forum, containing an interview with the French philosopher Finkielkraut ('What sort of Frenchmen are they?'). In my view, Mr. Astier fails to recognise two basic notions: in the first place, the enormous violence, the extensive destruction that has taken place in France is a very strange way of showing discontent over one's social situation. There are many other ways. Why didn't the rioters choose one of these? In the second place, the question is not posed: what do the youth in the 'bainlieus' themselves do to improve their situation? Why are their neighborhoods still grim? The dangerous idea that Astier is perpetuating with his article is that Europe is a paradise, in which everyone is automatically entitled to happiness, belonging and consumption. But that is not the way things work. Europe has been built up. We have to take up challenges, take our chances. There wasn't 'happiness for everyone' right from the start (read a description of the state of Europeans during the Industrial Revolution, if you don't believe me). If immigrants want to be part of this enterprise, I think they should be welocme, but they have to build along. As to being French, I imagine anyone who wants to be French, can be more French. Articles like this one from Astier will only lead to more violence, because they will reinforce the believe that if something is wrong, 'society' (namely European society) is to blame. We shouldn't forget that the least resistance we meet, means we should stop fighting for what we believe to be right.