I tried googling this and spoke to several people in the island but wasn't able to find a good response. Most other colonies speak the language of their colonizers, like Belize. And other territories of the US that belonged to France , Spain or Mexico on the past now fully speak English.

There was a big push from the federal government to institute english and their culture in the island in the early 1900s but it failed? My friends in San Juan said that people took actual steps to preserve their tradition but couldn't name which or by whom or why, so I would love to hear more details about this. Thanks!

I realized today that while other former British colonies like Australia and India still have widespread interest in traditional British sports like cricket, rugby, and soccer, Canada does not. Hockey seems to be the sport that has the most widespread interest, and it is not a British sport at all.

Why is this?

It's easy now to imagine it as some kind of turning point averting universal Ottoman conquest, but I suppose that's a lot of modern narrative laid on top.

I don't really get the sense that people did just from reading about it.

I was taught that the US Civil War was a fight to end slavery, but arguments about statues and Confederate flags in the news keep using the phrase States' Rights. Did that term mean something else or anything more than slavery during the 1860s?

[SPOILERS] Four of the Stark children were widely believed to be lost or "dead" (Sansa - disappeared from King's Landing and in hiding, Arya - believed to be dead but then replaced with an imposter, Bran and Rickon believed to have been killed) [/SPOILERS]

Does this parallel anything that happened in medieval times?

More specifically I'd like to know what machinery, materials, etc. were used to build/reinforce wharves and piers and how they managed to lay foundations or place pillars underwater to support those structures? Bonus question: Were others machines, materiel or methods used in the early colonies because of a (possible) lack of what they had back in Europe? Or was it just the same?

Just wondering since you hear a lot about the Tiger I and it's fear factor it had, but the Tiger II, a much more daunting tank, isn't talked about nearly as much.

I realise this is a little odd and speculative, but if the Americas did not exist and the Pacific and Atlantic were one massive ocean, could the Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria have crossed it?

It looks to be a trip of least 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles). At eight knots (15kph, 9mph) the trip would take almost two years. Would their supplies have lasted that long?

The British smuggling of opium into China caused massive societal damage. While there was opium smoking and even more powerful opiates like morphine available in Western Europe, why was the situation never as bad?

A post over at r/historyporn of wedding bands taken from Holocaust victims got me asking what happened to the large quantities of wedding rings, jewellery, clothing, shoes etc that the Nazis stockpiled? I know some are on display as part of memorials and museums but that can’t account for all of it surely.

When the Franks conquered parts of Gaul, the locals probably referred to themselves as Romans. Is there a specific date where it is shown the locals start to call themselves by the name of their conquerors, as Franks?

edit - typo

I’m pointing out to begin with: I am not American. I live in another hemisphere altogether (specifically in Israel), and this was not a topic covered in history classes over here. It’s just something I’ve been curious about.

So, I came across the argument that the claim that the war was fought over state rights was not true, as the declarations of secession by the seceding states explicitly stated it was because of race, and they actually tried to block the right of free states to protect runaway slaves (can’t recall the specifics), and one such declaration even derided the notion of state rights. However, considering that owning slaves was only affordable to a minority of Southerners, I find it strange that common soldiers decided to make it their hill to die on.

So what was their motivation? Because I’m getting the impression that when people discuss what the war was ‘about’, they don’t realize they’re talking about what it was ‘about’ for two very different subsets of the population.

Where does the six million figure come from?

And what was the technological breakthrough required that meant it couldn't be made earlier?

I've been reading up on the battle, and it thoroughly confuses me. Almost ever single engagement between the IJA and marines ended up with the IJA losing many more soldiers. Was it a difference in tactics? Were the IJA poorly equipped?

Thanks!

Britain supporting Jews into Palestine sounds like something that would create a Nazi Germany and their 2nd world war with Britain, considering they were enemies from WWI. If I missed any facts, please do tell me!