In response to the (ridiculous and sad) backlash over the Superbowl Coke commercial, I'm wondering, historically, what percent of first generation immigrants to America, from it's founding, have had English as a first language.

I believe that around 10% of Americans have English or British ancestries. Is that true? If so, is it only 10% of immigrants who could speak English off the boat?

I know this is difficult because of America's founding by British settlers and different rates of immigration in different time periods, but I'm looking for a rough estimate. Could I say it would be less than half? Less than a third?

Thank you in advance and have a lovely night!

EDIT: Also, would Irish immigrants in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth have spoken English or Gaelic?

A light reading on the Belgian Revolution outlines some of the factors for why it happened, I still don't understand how the borders of Belgium were decided. Why did the French speakers not join France and why did the Flemish speakers see themselves as independent from Netherlands? What decided the border between Netherlands and Belgium? What unified a seemingly distinct group of peoples? When did the idea of Belgian nationalism arise?

When did BC start being used? Did he immediately die and everybody just decided? Or was it around the New Testament?

I did a search here and found a couple of things which would suggest that it did not, but popular opinion seems to be pretty entrenched.

To make the question as clear as possible, it doesn't have to be the beautiful chest that everybody saw in Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'm just looking for something that was acknowledged as being the Ark by contemporaries.

Did the federal government not have the power to pass something like the Controlled Substances Act at the time? Was the 18th amendment more of a statement?

Why was it so difficult for the Sri Lankan govt to fight with LTTE forces? What tactics did the LTTE use to so badly brutalise Sri Lankan forces and what was different in the last offensive that destroyed the LTTE that wasn't present in previous attempts?

all throughout colonial history you examples of colonists trading and mixing with locals, for instance in japan, china, the islands around australia, and america.

However having living abroad and experiencing an actual language barrier i've often wondered how the colonists did it without pre existing translations.

Basically how would one argue that history, or at least war, has almost only been just a bunch of dickheads trying to control resources and people. That they use religion, ideology, morals, as a dress up or cover, and really plays little or no part.

The crusades weren't a holy war between Christians and Muslims, merely one group from the east and one from the west simply trying to take/defend their capital.

Same would go for the Cold War and ideology, and WW2 for morals.

This could be seen as a part of the materialist conception of history, that resources and production move history. That culture, religion, philosophy, wills of "great men", morality, are all just a foot note.

For example, the Torah/Bible mandates a day of rest every seventh day. Was this a common concept in Antiquity cultures (Eg: Hellenic, Roman, Carthaginian/Phoenician etc.) or was it a new idea?

I have been attempting to research old houses and the like in my area and I have been finding it difficult at times. One I have specifically been having difficulty with is the first 200 years or so of history regarding Belvedere House located in Drumbo, Northern Ireland. I was wondering if you could pass on some tips and maybe help me in my research into the origins of the house previously mentioned. Thank you in advance.

Within the last several years there has been talk of a dwindling middle class as the wealth gap continues to increases. Some methods of thought put the middle class as the backbone of a strong economy and country.

I was curious about the middle class of various civilizations throughout different ages. Did they even have a middle class? Were they given the same thought that they are now? Were they crucial to the stability and economy of that civilization?

I realize this may be a broad question but I'm not looking for a specific answer on a specific civilization.

I understand that Professor Weatherford is an anthropologist, rather than a historian. As such, he would naturally seek to understand a people as they would understand themselves. Given such, though, I am inclined to hold his particular interpretation of their history to be somewhat suspect. Am I right to do so, or has he managed to balance accuracy with that desire?

I don't just mean this because "western" essentially means white, but they seem more culturally alike to Europe and America than to countries like Japan, China, Persia, India, etc.

Their country was a Marxist republic for a while, Marx was a man of western philosophy no doubt.

What makes them not consider themselves apart of "the west"?

The holocaust had not yet begun, and my family was not Hewish, yet, I can't seem to understand why they would travel across the glove to the US when they did. (Genealogy research). Thanks.

It seems like for the first century after the United States came into being, England was constantly undermining its existence. What event or series of events changed this mindset? Is there another pair of countries/states with a similar course? Thanks!

So I'm reading up on Hungary, and according to Bryan Cartledge in The Will to Survive, Krushchev was on the fence for a while about how to deal with the Hungarian revolution of 1956. He is quoted as saying:

[By withdrawing from Hungary] we would demonstrate the weakness of our position. In this case our party would not understand us. Besides Egypt we would be giving away Hungary too. We have no other choice.

So, my questions are:

• How much did the Suez crisis affect Krushchev's decision-making about the Hungarian uprising?

• What did Krushchev mean with that quote?

• How much, if any, influence did the USSR have in Egypt, and how did Suez affect that?

Bonus points to anyone who can recommend me some good histories of post-1867 Hungary!

From what I understand if they were discovered during the war they could be either shot or turned against the Germans, as part of the double-cross system, but I was just wondering what would happen if they were discovered after, once the war was over. Its a minor plot point in a cheesy piece of fiction I'm writing.