As you probably already know, I'm white, Southern, straight, married, 65, and have always considered myself privileged, even though my household never had any money to speak of. I was privileged because: - I grew up in a house where people were gentle and loving to each other. - I was raised with music and books and games and some lovely old things to use every day. - I was taught things that have helped me to navigate relatively successfully through life. All very nice. But the real and underlying privilege of my circumstances was that I was protected by the system and by the law. Had I been a different color, that would not necessarily have been the case. Had I not been straight, or blessed with a quick mind, or reasonably attractive, I would not have been able to move so easily through the world. And had I not been "one of us," there would have been many gracious and sometimes powerful institutions into which I would not have been invited. So when I hear "privileged" used as a pejorative, I think that the speaker must mean "entitled." Privilege is a gift that is accidental, not earned. Entitlement, in my view, indicates an abdication of the responsibilities that come with privilege - the responsibility to keep an open mind and a kind heart; to share the wealth of privilege, whether it's money or access or knowledge; to stay on the right side of the line between discernment and judgment; to respect the person even if you don't like the behavior; to be tolerant of differences and intolerant of unfairness; and to protect, with whatever power your position grants you, the right of every person to equal treatment and equal protection under the law. I wish I lived up to those responsibilities all the time, but I know them, and that's part of my privilege, too. So I am right there with olychick when she says that it is those of us on the safe side of the river who must build the bridges.

jessy, reading your original request and the information you provided has me at a total loss. I though English schools were bad enough at teaching irrelevant courses and subject matter (although they are belatedly trying to tidy up their acts) but the above is just so strange. I asked my DH (a long-time teacher) what age Grade 9'ers were and told him what was expected of your son. He said it sounded typical of a 'modern' university course, where 'studying' is left to the student, everything is wishy-washy and very little basic information is either taught or learnt. As some other RP'ers have said I would be interested if this course has been decided by the history/English teacher, the Head of the Dept or a School board. (here in England by the time pupils reach 14+ years it is the Examination boards that set the curriculum) As it stands, although your son might get something from the reading matter as works of literature I honestly don't think he will learn any history except maybe a little from The Scarlet Pimpernel. How, for eg can he learn any historical facts from the stories of King Arthur? It's as daft as asking a child of the future what he learnt about our generation from reading The Lord of the Rings. I'd love to hear the teacher's explanation of Patterns of Interaction and what it actually means or be a fly on the wall during his lessons. This woolly concept seems way too long (the history alone would occupy a UK kid the whole of his senior school days) and bound to lead to terminal boredom. As far as the book-cover thing goes. What I seriously would suggest, if they have to produce some sort of 'Art Work' is that between them, the class produces an illustrated 'time-line' as a frieze round the room, starting with the first Unit 1300 > > > adding the main historical events and fitting the book titles into the appropriate places. This way not only will they notice how far away Homer is from the 'modern world' but they might learn the sequence of history, a concept of which many children (and adults) have little understanding. Jessy this is most interesting . . . because it seems so CAZY. :-) . . . btw, keep off Richard Burton imo. He had serious problems of a sexual nature (his wife burnt all his letters and papers) so not really suitable for school!

I was with a large company with ops coast to coast and abroad. It was clearly communicated that personal and lifestyle questions that were not relevant to the job's requirements COULD NOT be asked. Do smaller employers or those with less concern about compliance with the law ignore rules? Yes, of course. And, I looked it up - 29 states and the District of C prohibit discrimination/asking about legal activities conducted outside of working hours. So, 60 percent. My company followed the same rule everywhere because there are also federal employment discrimination rules too, in the absence of/in addition to state ones. Private organizations, like religious ones, can discriminate (and they do!) and with volunteers anyway, if there's no public slander or injury, I don't think they have standing to bring suit.

I think it was the Norman conquest in general that brought so many French words into English but I'm not sure. I cited a curious example of a few related words but the uncountable number of food related words and the many other words of all kinds are much more numerous than most people realize. I don't know and didn't look for the answer but I wonder if words of French origin outnumber words from any other single source. In return, many English words are used as shortcuts in French. Not so much incorporated into the language as with other words but rather for colloquial, informal use. A typical comment among co-workers on Friday afternoon is to say "Bon weekend", the meaning of which is obvious to an English speaker. You wear "un smoking" (tux) to formal affairs, leave your can in "le parking", work up "le business plan", and on and on.