PieFed"No nation is older than 250"
submitted by
edited
irelephant [he/him]🍭https://i.postimg.cc/2j0FNhnV/image.png
A threads post saying "There has never been another nation ever that has existed much beyond 250 years. Not a single one. America's 250th year is 2025. The next 4 years are gonna be pretty interesting considering everything that's already been said." It has a reply saying "My local pub is older than your country".Transcript
Edit: swapped image link, RIP lemm.ee
Original link: https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/b4d2f599-1922-4978-9db3-fc7832681c10.png
There's a restaurant near me that's been in business since 1472.
They went bankrupt in 2023. Weird kind of feel.
Man, the final owner of the business must have some interesting feelings being the one that drove it into the ground after 550 years.
They survived the Black Plague and the Spanish Flu, but Covid did them in.
Didn't realise we're living in 2225 already, damnEdit: math no longer adds up to 2225 ad after op edited year to 1472 ad.
That would be 753 years ?
2225 - 1472
Yes, but op edited comment
My court house and my apartment building are older than America xD
Some American buildings are older than America xD
The Hudson Bay Company was founded in 1670 and went bankrupt this year. To think a company that indirectly formed an entirely new culture 300 years ago is now going under is wild to me.
HBC was effectively a "country" for a good chunk of time as well. It had full autonomous control of the land, it's own 'government', provided public services, policing, and it's own military.
I think it's a shame. It did some awful things in its early years, and it was mismanaged lately. But, I wish there had been a way to allow it to continue to exist as a business, even if it was just a single store and more museum than business. Who knows, maybe it could have had a renaissance at some point. Now it's just something in the history books as one of the longest-lived companies.
the u.s. is 'young', relative to the world stage, this is true; but its constitution is among the oldest in the world.. and it is starting to show its age.
Yeah, this is a misunderstanding among conservatives. Our legal system and government structure is woefully outdated, but our country is really young.
It's like a teen athlete being really proud that he has the oldest sneakers of all the competitors.
Deleted by moderator
Your analogy has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is about the age of the countries, and their constitutions.
Deleted by moderator
So it’s like a teen who’s really proud of having the oldest sneakers of all the competitors then.
It was "showing its age" a not long after it was made. Two years later the French based their first written constution on the US one. Then other nations followed suit over the years and wanted their own, and they already thought the French one was the better option as a starting point.
In fairness, given that the French are currently on their fifth attempt at a republic, the other nations were arguably wrong.
They inspired a lot of longer lasting constitutions in other countries
I'd say if you measure success by being able to change and try again instead of trying to keep a dead thing alive then maybe they were right
Conversely, if you were to measure success by how long it takes for the whole thing to collapse into a dictatorship, then the US constitution still isn't looking too bad, in comparison.
But then, who am I to judge? The closest thing we have to a constitution in the UK is a textbook written by Dicey in the late 1800s.
Thomas Jefferson believed the constitution should be a living document.
Nature itself dictates so through the length of a generation: If the constitution outlives human, we end up being ruled by the dead rather than by the living, as a democracy presupposes.
One could assume this would mean that they should last a lifetime, but in a letter to James Madison, Jefferson expresses the belief that each generation have the right to their own:
This was the ideas of a central founding father of American democracy. Yet today, authoritarian tools in the supreme court are using their perceived legislative intent of the founding fatgers to justify all kinds of fucked up shit. The intent of the founding fathers was that the nation should move the fuck on and not be stuck in the past.
This isn't a problem with SCOTUS. In no way were they supposed to "re-interpret" the Constitution in order to keep it alive. The idea that a very small group of unelected Jackasses should have that power is clearly the complete opposite of what the Founders intended.
The normal way it stays "living", which is what Jefferson is talking about in those quotes, is via the Amendment process. The abnormal way it gets refreshed, which Jefferson also sometimes wrote about, was via revolution.
What SHOULD be happening is that when something needs changed Congress passes a law to do it. If that law turns out to be in conflict with the Constitution then Congress starts the Amendment process. Then it and the States vote to Ratify that Amendment to the Constitution and then the thing is done.
The process is difficult but doable, or at least it used to be. In today's world our Congress is a lazy pile of decrepit assholes desperately trying to do as little as possible.
Yeah, that's fair. I believe if one should have an almost religious approach to the constitution, it is important to be able to interpret it in light of the current day. But you are right that the best solution is not necessarily to allow dynamic interpretation, but to leave religion outside of politics and focus on creating good laws.
Because other countries modernize it. Well America worships it as a god. Even though it has been changed before.
Constitutionalism is a new idea. Pioneered by America. Of course America will have the oldest until it collapses.
England?
If we talk about nations that became part of other nations, venice, lots of former city states in germany are even older
England still doesn't have a constitution. It's just a pile of old laws.
Just because it doesnt have a single document called "the constitution" doesnt mean they dont have one. A constitution is also just a bunch of laws.
Germany has the Grundgesetz (eng.: basic law) but not a Verfassung (eng.: constitution) but the Grundgesetz basicly is the constitution. A constitution is just the collection of fundamental laws of a state
Edit: and ye some laws are old, doesnt mean they are bad. "Seperation of chruch and state", "freedom of religion", "press freedom" "freedom of speech", "right to gather" aso are old laws from the bill of rights from 1689 and yet they are still good.
Its not just about age, its about how a law is writen, phrased and its place in the modern day and society, that makes a law good or bad.
Germany has a criminal law which forbids the dancing on good friday, and the till 1993 the Schaumweinsteuer for the emperors fleet (a tax on all bubbly alcoholic drinks)* long after it no longer had an emperor nore an empire nore an empirial fleet
*side tangent:
Man english is missing out so many great words. Atleast dutch has it as "Mousserende wijn"
Constitutionalism is based around the idea of having a legal system of two layers - ordinary day to day law, and a deeper more profound law that somehow matters more and should be harder to change.
The US pioneered the idea of having a constitution from which the branches of government derives their power and that sets the rules of the game.
In the UK, all laws are technically of equal value, and the system instead relies heavily on tradition and obscure institutions like the monarchy and house of lords. They don't have a constitution, though of course they have laws that constitutes the law of the land. It's not necessarily a bad thing - if laws existed for hundreds of years, it might be because they do some good or at least limited harm.
German constitutionalism is largely built around the ideas of Kelsen, and is very much a system of constitutionalism. That they opted for the word Grundgesetz instead of Verfassung for the legal text is of course interesting, but who interprets this text other than the BundesVERFASSUNGSgericht? It's a constitution, they just named it the basic law. Reflecting precisely this two-level system of laws that constitutionalism is designed around, and that the UK lacks.
What should and should not go into constitutions is an ongoing debate of course, but I haven't heard anyone argue for provisions about sparkling wine. Sadly.
Bro he could've done a single online search and disproved himself in literal seconds.
Freedom of expression has morphed into freedom of stupidity.
freedom to flaunt stupidity even.
'In the UK, 100 kilometers is a long way. In the USA, 100 years is a long time.'
In the UK we have to ask what that is in miles.
About 62-63, not really that many.
France, Switzerland, england, bavaria, brandenburg, vatican, spain, netherlands, denmark, sweden, portugal
I could go on and on
Deleted by moderator
A ha ha ha ha Sweden is fouded in 1994 🤣😂 ouch my stomach hurts! What the hell 😁 I mean at least make it 1894 or something.
I don't remember anything special in 94?? Maybe we got a borglig regering? But with that logic the USA is only some months old lol.
Deleted by moderator
Oh I can almost see the logic - It's like an append-only log, you only add to it, the original text is still original
Except amendments can override existing parts, so in reality, the US was born May 7th 1992 and judging by its age and personality, was likely a Vine star for a while.
We got a name for that kind of logic from where I come from.
It translates roughly to "stupid".
I'll bet not 1 American in 100 know that there was a time when Sweden was a dominant superpower in Europe.
San Marino
I'll spot you at least a few of these. But the Vatican was incorporated in 1929 precisely because they needed to delineate between the Italian city of Rome and the Bishopry of the Catholic Church. Italy wasn't a fully unified country until about a decade earlier.
It was a fully unified country way before 1929, unless you are counting Alto Adige and Trieste as conditio sine qua non to have a fully unified Italy, which I wouldn't.
As for the Vatican situation, the Italian kingdom completely conquered and annexed the papal state in 1870 (Breccia di Porta Pia).
In 1929 the Pope formed an alliance with Mussolini to get a state in exchange for the approval of the fascist government from the Church (and other stuff, but that's the gist of it)
It was a confederacy of loosely associated city states which were sometimes at war with one another going on for centuries.
I know this opens up "The United States can't claim a full 250 years on account of that frackus in the 1860s" and I'm fine with that. But I will strongly contend that when your city raises an army to try and sack your nation's capital, you are no longer living in a historically contiguous country.
Naples up and did its own thing several times from the 18th-20th century. Nevermind how many people had to die fighting the Italian Wars of Independence.
Anything outside of Europe?
Japan, tibet, mongolia, iran, ethiopia, mali, kongo, thailand
Arguably, I believe America is the oldest constitutional nation.
Even british constitutionalism is older
"Even"?
well that ended pretty recently unfortunately
That would be San Marino.
San Marino had a constitution in 1600, was a republic a lot longer than that, and it's still an independent republic. So it's very arguable
TIL that is even a country
It's a small one, but if you're ever in Italy, it might warrant a visit (depending on time and route). The medieval old town built on top of mount Titan is really beautiful and the view from the walls is breathtaking.
Your American education is showing.
A while ago I mentioned to a German friend that I was visiting Andorra and he asked me where that was. I bet there are plenty of Europeans who don't know where San Marino is either.
most other countries still have their constitution though
I feel this isn't quite the same though. When a country has a complete change in politics/ruling of the nation, then it really isn't the same country anymore. (French Revolution ending in 1799 shouldn't be still considered the same country, even though the name is the same. England still allowed the royal family to have power over the people and politics until 1957 so wasn't a "full" democracy, Bavaria I became part of Germany in 1949, etc....)
The US has for its entire time listed has always been an elected government that followed the constitution, meaning it's been the same country.
You're entirely right but Bavaria became a part of Germany in 1871.
Sorry about that, I just had done a quick check on Wikipedia which declared (and I quickly accepted):
Total rubbish. In the 1700s only landowners could vote. Truly universal suffrage wasn't enshrined until 1965, so by your reckoning America is only 60 years old.
Changes of government don't mean an entirely new country, there's continuity like how France refers to the 1st republic or the current 5th republic. It's still France.
Exactly. By that logic, every time a new political party takes over, America is a new country.
Although, with MAGA taking power, and completely throwing out the Constitution, the case can be made that we have become a new country.
White, male landowners - I'm just guessing here.
Obviously
Yeah, it kinda does. The words "Country' and "Nation" aren't full synonyms even though people tend to use them interchangeably. A a Country is a political entity while a Nation is focused on the collective identity and shared values of its people.
In short the Nation of France is old while the Country of France is much younger.
The definitions honestly feel backward to me but I'm not the person in charge of these things.
That's just semantics, not any practical distinction.
Do you feel there is no "practical distinction" between 1730 France and 1930 France?
It's like saying there's no practical distinction between Red and Scarlet. The fact that they are different is why there are separate words. Its the same with Country and Nation.
Pointless argument. Is there no difference between the US in 1776 and now? Every country is changing constantly. Because they're full of people.
So you mean the usa never modernise? Checks out...
You are basing that on the Constitution, which has changed considerably over America's history.
You're talking about "a country", the guy in the OP talks about "a nation". Pretty vast difference between the two.
Man, imagine being so fucking dense you literally ignore the nation that created yours, which is still around. Inglun? Wazzat?
About 15 years ago, I got to go on a road trip across the states. 6 weeks, driving from east coast to west coast.
On more than one occasion, when we were inevitably asked where we were from and dutifully replied "England.", we were met with utterly blank stares.
"Uhhhhhhhh, Engerland?" "You mean New England? Never met anyone from there before..."
"No, England. Old England. The original England, capital city, London. That England."
"London? That's just north of here... I don't get it."
I swear, the sheer ignorance and lack of basic understanding of the geography of our world was fucking staggering in some places. Not always the armpit of nowhere "towns" either.
I have had exactly the same experience. "Where's England?".... "Errrrmmm, Europe...?"
You know the language you're speaking? It's from there.
I got asked what state New Zealand was in. I felt my American tour had been worth it at that point.
Ha ha, one guy I met guessed Wisconsin. I was told I spoke very good English.
I'm not saying this didn't happen. But as an American myself, I find this bizarre. I was born and raised in Texas, and I can't recall ever meeting someone who didn't know what England is. Though I guess if you are visiting from England, the topic is more likely to come up.
I'm also convinced that every country has absolute morons within their populations. Our American morons are just louder than most.
Pfffft. Texas was one of the worst.
Despite being the oldest of the group at 25, not one, but two* different restaurants in Texas refused me alcohol on the basis they thought both my British Driving Licence (a biometric photo-ID) *and my Passport were fake as they'd never heard of Britain.
That and the entire fucking state stinks of oil. You can smell it before you cross the state line, and the smell fades as you leave, it's bizarre.
There are some really dense people, who actively avoid learning anything at all.
I guarantee you could find American citizens who have never heard of Donald Trump.
I kinda envy them if so. To be so oblivious or isolated to not see the country crumbling around us....
I wonder what i would get if i say my region
The first part is believable, you are talking straight out of your ass for the second. No one, not even the most inbred, hillbilly, hicks, would think "USA" when they hear "London".
And before anyone starts with "well there are lots of stupid people in the world, I can see this happening" no you fucking can't. Because NO ONE would associate London with the US rather than the UK.
You seriously overestimate your countrymen. We were just about to cross the Canadian border, if that helps you wrap your head around it. London, Ontario was some ways north. We actually went through it for the laughs, after the interaction with the moron. 💛
I guess youve never been to Kentucky.
Or Oklahoma 💀💀💀
We went to Kentucky. A nice fella who we played EVE Online with back then invited us to swing by for BBQ and Bourbon.
Didn't really hang about otherwise though so can't comment on the average local's temperament. We had a lot of ground to cover :)
There's even a London there.
There are people in the US for whom the whole world is whatever region they're currently living in. Sounds like they encountered some of those.
Who did the US get independence from, buddy?
The Kingdom of Great Britain, which ceased to exist in 1800 and lasted less than a century.
Use the same definition (unchanged political institutions) and tell me how long the Roman Empire lasted.
Best I can find is about 500 years.
The was also a kingdom period in Rome's earlier times. But that's ancient history, am i rite?
(I'll let myself out)
You have to add all these together to include coups and hostile takeovers or divide it to hilariously short periods.
I think that was the point of the original poster. I mean, they were wrong, but I find a lot of the comments in this thread hilariously more wrong in their self-righteous response.
Well there’s that… but these people are free from the restraints of logic.
They think of countries as dynasties or times of uninterrupted, peaceful transitions of power. Britain has changed dynasties and government types over the years. It's semantics.
Wait till these people find out about Japan.
And fucking China.
I used to be in the record business, and worked for a time for a Chinese record company who was releasing indigenous folk and classical music.
Western music traces back about 1000-1200 years, while Chinese music has an unbroken written musical tradition going back several thousands of years.
China gets a bit fuzzier in between dynasties and revolutions. But there are definitely multiple post-Unification dynasties that lasted longer than 250 years.
What about San Marino?
Absolutely.
I mean sure they've still got a royal line, but the royal family wasn't always in power. Like is it fair to say that the Tokugawa government is the same as the meiji restoration government, is the same as the modern government?
You're conflicting state and nation I think. Both are also pretty loose terms. Nations didn't really exist before nationalism in the 1800s and states are just big ships of thesiii
I was thinking more along the lines of governmental continuity, which has just as arbitrary lines. But less arbitrary in some cases like conquest or dynastic change. Like there was something that happened between Julius Caesar and Agustus. The line isn't super clear, but the Republican government and the empire definitely have some key differences even if the Senate was never really disolved.
But I remember Louis XIV saying something like "I die, but the state remains". So I think in some proto form "the state" or something larger than just the ruler has existed on and off throughout history.
The Edo Period alone spanned 268 years. The Heian Period nearly made it to 400.
Even if you evaluate these as distinct, they individually outstip the US.
That's absolutely true! I just didn't want it to seem like Japan was some sort monolith of unbroken rule.
I've also heard the right say that America is the best and youngest country. Like they seriously think they are the most recent country to be formed.
They also think that America is #1 despite being the "youngest" makes them even extra good.
Americans don't have the mental capacity to look beyond their borders.
Only a few do, usually CEOs looking to exploit more people
Unless they're looking to conquer their closest (ex) ally, of course.
Even ignoring how obviously wrong this is about how old other countries are, America turns 250 in 2026 not 2025 lol
I know this not because I paid attention in history class, but because I played Fallout 76 where the vault dwellers celebrate America's Tricentennial before leaving the vault and find it a wasteland.
Bicentennial Quarters anyone? 1776-1976.
Be right back, those kids are on my lawn again.
There's a difference between turning 250 and the 250th year, the latter being what was referenced. One year after a baby is born, they "turn one" for their first birthday; but the moment they're born, it's their first year since we don't start counts on zero (yes, I know, unless you're a computer—insert canned laughter).
You're right that America would turn 250 in 2026, but OP's meme is correct in that they started the count on one, inclusively.
They're not being precise with their language, but their point is largely true. What they really mean is that the US has the oldest still active Constitution in the world. The UK has existed in a continuous government for far longer, but they don't have a written Constitution like the US does.
Yeah, it's easy to shit on Americans about being ignorant of history. But this person's point is largely true. The US has had the same constitution in effect for nearly 250 years. It is the oldest written constitution on Earth still in effect. Most nations have revolutions or complete rewrites of their foundational legal documents long before they reach this point.
And this is also why the US has such political instability right now. We have a Constitution that was written for the needs of 250 years ago. It was formed from a series of compromises that made sense in the politics of 250 years ago. At this point, we really should scrap it entirely and start from scratch. Having the world's oldest Constitution really isn't something worth bragging over; it just means you're running obsolete software.
I'm all for giving people the benefit of doubt, but no. They don't "really mean" that, otherwise they would have written "constitution" somewhere, and not wrote "has had" when they mean "currently active".
It's possible they misremembered someone who had a point, true, but they do not.
The problem is they're mixing up concepts of constitutional government, continuity in government, nationalism vs dynastic control, and the idea of the "natural lifespan" of democracies.
Even if that is what they meant, and even if the UK doesn't count for whatever reason, this would still be incorrect. The constitution of San Marino dates from 1600.
Yeah, but does San Marino have a population of more than seven?
Yes, and irrelevant.
It's the weirdest to get pushback on little joke comments, but of course it's relevant. The US Constitution needs some serious updates but there is no denying it is the oldest for a country with significant population and diversity. San Marino is the fifth smallest country in the world, has a population ~10,000 times less than the US, and is almost entirely monocultural.
The point is that under no measure is it true. If you go for nation as people's identity, Japan, Egypt or China are millenia old. If by the current form of constitution then us constitution was amended in 1992 (IIRC). If we go by geographical borders, Hawaii and Alaska are 1960s additions. If we go by form of government, the UK is about a hundred years older. If we go by the base form of the constitution, ammendments be damned, either UK or San Marino are older.
More importantly, is your IQ more than seven?
Yes. 9 is good, right?
Don't put your finger near your mouth, you may bite it.
Does a constitution define what a nation is?
In the case of the US, yes. The US started out as 13 independent countries. It was only the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution that defined the US as a country. Disband the US constitution tomorrow, and the US becomes 50 independent countries.
Even then, not really.
We celebrate July 4, 1776, the creation of our national identity independent from England, not June 21, 1788, when our constitution took effect.
But July 4th is called "Independence Day", because it's the day we got our independence from England. The articles of confederation weren't signed until November 15, 1777, July 4th, 1776 was just the declaration of Independence
The US didn't get widely accepted as a country until a good few years later (within 5-10 years though depending on who you ask)
Yes, that's already what I'm saying. The United States celebrates its Independence Day, not any day that has anything to do with the creation of the Constitution that forms our basis of government.
The UK dates back to 1801, when the parliaments of Scotland and Ireland were abolished and the UK Parliament established.
And this is not even true as there have been change. Black people where a quarter of a person at one point. Women couldn't vote. So to say the US has had the same law for 250 years is also bullshit.
It's worse than that. The fraction you're referring to is 1/5 and they weren't considered people at all, they were slaves. Slaves were not considered people in terms of rights, but the number of congressmen (and also EC electors) a state had added the slave population divided by five.
So slave states had more power in congress and more voting power to determine who would be president proportional to how many slaves they had. More slaves = more "democratic" power for the slave owners.
Slaves had no rights, but slave owners had more power from that evil 1/5 rule.
It's 3/5. It was literally called the 3/5 compromise. Please history
I just want to make sure I'm hearing you right on this... 1/5? Where is that number coming from?
You guys think it's bad reading all this online?
Try living here...
I bet outside of the US they have a very different perspective of what it's like living here right now.
Specifically, the fact that things like some of our largest protests ever aren't even being covered inside the states. There are huge public displays thousands and thousands of people being completely ignored by media. I wonder what else we're not being allowed to see here.
I've been saying this right from the beginning, but this is a war on information.
Felon 45 and the right are going to do everything they possibly can to make sure word doesn't get out
Egypt, anyone?
I once read that we are closer to Cleopatra's time than Cleopatra was to the building of the pyramids. Weve got 250 years under our belts, while Egypt had thousands.
There's a certain irony that there are a couple of cases of "my local pub is older than your entire country" in the country in question. For example the White Horse Tavern in Newport, RI.
Rome lasted for 2,000 years because I consider the Byzantines as true Romans.
So did they, "byzantine empire" is a modern conceit
Depending on who you ask, some might even say that Rome still IS
ROMA INVICTA
There is an island in the Aegean where they identified as Roman until 1912
Does this person not understand how dates work?
I assume they are talking about the US government being one of the longest running continuous systems of government.
Let us never change! /s
Even that isnt true.
If we talk overall after 0 AD then the HRE would probably take the reign
If overall with no time, egypts, inka and romans probably will top that(i have no idea how old the inkas are)
This person doesn't understand how books work. Calendars & history? doubt....
So, yeah, that first person is a dumb-ass, but that second comment doesn't really prove anything. I live in a 400 year-old town in this 250 year-old country,
Yeah, we have bars in the USA that predate the founding of the country as well. White Horse Tavern in Newport, Rhode Island had been operating since 1673.
Yeah, I'm in Massachusetts, and you can drive to any town on the North Shore and find houses with plaques dating them to the late-sixteen or early-seventeen hundreds. They're not even landmarks, they're just someone's house.
Jean Lafitte in Exile. Oldest gay bar in the US, formed long before the US existed.
The first statement is just so stupid, the second is just a dunk because it didn't need to be rebutted.
The Roman Empire lasted for 1000 years. Ancient Egypt lasted 3100 years. Sumer lasted 4000 years. 250 years is a piss in the ocean near those.
i think the first poster misunderstood a quote and I can't reproduce it anymore either. it was something about no empire lasted more then 250 years? or no government form or something among these lines?
it was not about the country disapearing in name or anything, but that it damatically changes in one way or another like completly changing the form of government
I remember it as most empires collapse before or around 250 years. If I remember the quote correctly it mentioned most not all, and empire not nation or country.
Even that's a very obvious fallacy though
Depends on the condition being measured. I've heard similar claims about democracies. I know the OG democracy in Athens Greece lasted about 250 years. I'm not aware of another democracy that existed longer than the US .. But I'm not an expert in the field, so i welcome examples of longer lived democracies.
I think the US is the longest modern democracy, but it's a very narrow margin comparatively speaking - it's only got something like 30 years on Norway and the Netherlands, which are vastly more stable
Is it though? Do you still have one?
I'm not American, so it took me a while to parse wtf you were on about!
The 250 year thing is basically complete BS
Dumb people hear something, misunderstand it, and repeat an incorrect version with authority and without any critical thinking. I'm sure this person heard that the US is the oldest existing democracy. The next oldest, depending on the criteria you use, is probably Switzerland at 175+ years. But does this person really think that the US has existed longer than, say, the ancient Egyptians, the Ottomans, the Byzantines, etc.?
The oldest existing democracy is Iceland depending on how you define democracy. But that was around 930 ad and had free men participating in making laws
And how you define nation/country. You could say the Isle of Mann, but it probably doesn't meet the definition.
This part of your comment seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland
It does a lot of heavy lifting when defining the US to be a democracy too.
You'd have to be a white supremacist to think the US was a democracy when slavery existed. Sure some people may have been voting, but there were Lords in a lot of places in Europe voting on stuff for a very long time.
We may as well say the Holy Roman Empire was a democracy because people voted for who would be Emperor. Sure the peasants didn't get to vote, but it doesn't matter if not every one gets to vote? Or does it?
Those are not nations in the modern sense. Modern Turkey and Egypt have only been around since after WWI. Byzantium hasn't been a nation since they were conquered by the Ottomans.
The post doesn't say existing nations, it says there has never been one longer than 250 years.
How do you define a nation? Rome, Byzantium, the Ottoman empire, etc., those were all empires. You can debate whether you want to consider them nations.
The US is an empire unless indigenous peoples don’t count
Same for the US, if you want to debate semantics.
Lol debating semantics is exactly what's happening in this post
If a country has ethnic/lingual, racial, gender/sexual, or wealth requirements is it really a democracy?
I'm not convinced that the USA was a democracy prior to 1964.
In that case there wasn't any democracy up until maybe 100 years ago (no clue what country first ticked all the boxes, or when)
Yeah 100 years seems like a good guess. Basically the aftermath of ww1.
When Greeks invented the term they stipulated only free men were able to vote. So depending on how you want to look at it, any country that allows free men to vote is a democracy. We've (modern people) just updated the terms of service to suit our current version of morality. We might decide our thinking outdated and misguided in the next 250 years and change things again. Hell we might even give trans people, women and people of colour equal rights to white men, you know, like legal protections and such. We might not try to suppress their votes... idk has anything actually changed since 1964 or did Americans just visit the moon?
Yeah words are a cultural construct, we're speaking modern English so I don't really care a ton about the word choices of philosophers 2500 years ago speaking a different language.
We should definitely make sure that our society provides rights for all, and work towards a truly representative democracy.
I think things have definitely changed since 1964.
When do you draw the line then? If 2500 and 250 years ago is too far back for theory and philosophy to apply, when does it?
I'm not saying their philosophy/theory doesn't apply, I'm just saying that what the word "democracy" meant to them is pretty irrelevant in a modern context. I wouldn't call apartheid South Africa a democracy, would you?
It is not. Not a democracy, at least in its modern sense.
It wasn't one back then either. Women and black people weren't allowed to vote from the start.
If the Greeks were a Democracy then so was the United States; they both used the same rules.
If Women and Minorities are your defining line then Great Britain didn't become a Democracy until either 1928 or 1969.
Yeah.
The US didnt become a democracy until the civil rights act in 1964.
While the US is pretty old as a state, most societies have a direct continuation from one state to the next. It's not like when France overthrew its monarchy they stopped being France or seeing themselves as French. So they may see their continuous history as much older than the current state, with the Kingdom of France going back to 987.
The US doesn't have a continuous history prior to 1776 because they mostly come from Britain but they denounce their British heritage and they settled in NA but also denounce the heritage of the local peoples there. So the average American sees their entire history as starting at 1776, maybe a little bit further back to include the initial colonies and that's about it.
I'd give as start dates for France either the kingdom of Clovis or the treaty of Verdun of 843. 987 was just a dynastic switch: different ruling dynasty, but it was the same country before and after imo.
They didn't even stop being a monarch (for very long). I think they're on something like their Fifth Republic at this point, because they keep going back and doing Bourbon Restorations, cause some of them cannot stop being monarchists no matter how hard they try.
Monarchists are like the fucking hydra. Chop off a thousand heads and you somehow get two thousand more monarchists in their place. It's bananas.
Well it's the 5th republic as of the constitutional reform of 1958. And the 4th republic was founded in the aftermath of WW2 and Germany dissolving the French government. The 3rd republic was founded after the 2nd Empire collapsed during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. The 2nd Empire was founded when Louis Napoleon Boneparte crowned himself emperor in 1852 and dissolved the 2nd republic. The 2nd republic was founded in 1848 after Napoleon (the other Napoleons uncle) was defeated at Waterloo ending the 1st Empire of Napoleon which lasted from 1804 to 1815 (with a brief holiday to Elba). The 1st republic was founded in the revolution of 1792 (the one with the heads being chopped off) until Napoleon seized power in a coup.
There has in fact only been one period of bourbon restoration in 1815. But since then and the 2nd Empire there has been little to no appetite for monarchy to return in France beyond a few crazed loonies.
― Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay
Even more than that, the nations of rhe western hemisphere have an unusual history, because they have an actual recorded starting point. Many countries have a history that goes back to before recorded history, fading into myth.
But in 1492, more or less, suddenly there was this brand new land mass to settle, and the major western powers immediately started to claim it. A new population developed over many generations, for well over 200 years, with no real connections to Europe, other than political, and that distant rule began to chafe. Eventually they revolted and established a brand new nation, something that was a nearly non-existent concept to nations that had been established since before recorded time.
The European powers be like "What are you talking about, starting your own country? That's not how it's done." And the Colonies be like "Yeah? Watch us."
As an American, its wild to see things in other countries that are hundreds, or even thousands of years old, when almost nothing in America is older than about 300 years.
Man, you should try being an aussie. We're simultaneously a glint in Britain's eye and old as balls
My country is technically 124 years old, i live walking distance from a goddamn seven thousand year old farm
There is stuff older than 300 years but they mostly were destroyed by the settlers
I am sorry, but walking property of French feudals wasn't part of French nation.
That aside, kingly blood from year 987 has, due to arithmetics of human procreation, gotten into most people from European countries by now. So technically a modern Frenchman can associate with a king of France from 1000 years ago, if they want that. Just doesn't make much sense.
XIX century romanticism is the problem. Everyone has learned of their nation's long and mythologized history because of that. Everyone believes that, which to an extent makes that real. Sibelius' music, Goethe's poetry, Vasnetsov's paintings, whatever. Strong aesthetic and symbolic. While German national-socialists kinda made too much of this distasteful, they've also made new things that came before them seem old and good. And by comparison more real.
If we do direct continuations, the US can do that with England.
While the state of France goes back to the Franks under king Childerich in the late 400s, the modern nation of France evolved during the French revolution and the Napoleonic era.
The very idea of "nation" as a political entity build upon ethnicity instead of loyality to a ruler is younger than 250 years, so technically the claim that the US is one of the oldest, if not the oldest nation in the world is correct. I doubt though that the person OP quoted is aware of the meaning of the word nation other than a synonym for country.
Well yeah. That's kind of the way words work. Of course there was history before that with England. Which had history before them from France, German, Rome, etc. If we, US people, are talking about before 1776 with the colonies, that time is generally referred to as "Colonial History"
When the French stopped being a monarchy, it's gov't changed, the rules of law changed, it was effectively a different country. If a group of friends play football, then the next time they play basketball, they are playing different sports. Same people though.
It probably has a more stable foundation too!
Remember the time we stumbled on an old local church with an American coworker. Yes dude, that thing was over 500 years old when Columbus discovered your continent, allegedly.
Columbus didn't even travel to north america, he went to middle- and south america :D
And he didn't discover shit. He was a bloody wanker and we should all just forget about him
And he wasn't just an asshole by modern standards, but by the standards of his own time as well!
Everything north of the Darien Gap is considered NA.
TIL Central America is considered a sub-region of North America
As a continent, yes
Look at it on a world map, one without border lines, and it's blindingly obvious. It's not a sub-region, it's part of a large land mass barely separated from a large land mass to the south.
Holy fuck. I can't tell if they are a troll or not. Reading that is infuriatingly stupid. No wonder America is in the shemozzle it is now, this idiocy and lack of critical thinking is far too common over there!
That's by design. The Republican Party has actively, deliberately suppressed the teaching of Critical Thinking in schools.
Pleak times for being a troll. Nobody understands anymore if you are only dumb or provoking.
England would like a word. It formed in 927 AD. That means it is 1,098 years old.
England and the UK are not one and the same thing (as should be clear from the wikipedia snippet you copied)
England is like a "state" in the UK like Idaho is a state in the United States, right?
There is a lot of nuance and complexity there but basically: yes.
Even if this were true, this would be anthropic reasoning, which is always suspect. The belief that the present, the here and now, cannot be exceptional will always overlook examples where it is exceptional.
We live in interesting times.
This isn't a facepalm. As any red-blooded American knows, the only country worth mentioning is America. Since all countries of note were founded after America, this OP is correct.
LoL. There was a comment today from somebody (in Canada) that mentioned "the time in Canada" as if there weren't multiple provinces in different time zones.
Self-centered exceptionalism isn't just an American thing, though they may be louder about it in many cases.
When it comes to self-centered exceptionalism, USA is #1!
So, Ireland is of note, but England isn't?
Culturally, Ireland is of great importance to the US. From the humble shamrock shake, all the way up to Lucky Charms, we owe a lot of debt to Ireland.
Meanwhile, we'll never forgive England for the Boston Tea Party. Look at how few Americans drink tea to this day and you'll see the level of contempt.
I grieve for the death of sarcasm.
I believe the ottoman empire (1299–1922) would like a word.
Yea there are a few buildings in my area that have been there for more than 250 years.
Idiot
To be fair, it's easier to manage a pub than a whole country.
Because the concept of a nation state is not much older, no? American Independence and French Revolution were among the first movements.
Isn't it kinda interesting, that the first nation is still a thing? France is in it's 5th iteration.
The concept of countries, which is what this is about, are a lot older.
China: lol, lmao
"lol" —Mao
Laughing out loud my ass off
"rofl" - Mao
Lmao - Mao
China, also: your dynasty is closing in on 300 years, huh? Good luck!
The People's Republic of China will be 76 years old this October.
The OP is wrong because there are a few existing nations older than 250 years, but there aren't many of them. As far as countries go, the United States is over the hill.
Its nonsense. China as a national and cultural entity is not 76 years old. Changing constitutions does not make it a different country, it is only americans who adhere to that belief system because their country didnt exist prior to their constitution.
Yes, it does. Country and Nation are not synonyms. Country refers to Government while Nation is about culture.
China as a Nation, that is a people with a shared culture and languages, is thousands of years old. China as a Country is less than 100 years old.
Since you are presumably not American how would you answer this question: How old is Panama?
Multiple chinese dynasties lasted longer than 250 years
The nation which hasn't existed as it currently is for even 100 years yet (and is already falling apart)?
China didn't just lose who they used to be, they deliberately murdered their old nation.
It is wild to me how Americans forget that they built their "nation" upon the genocide of earlier (first) nations, which were there for thousands of years.
Not really. The logic is attempting to draw a distinction between nations, kingdoms, and tribes, among other things, with emphasis on continuity in governance. So France isn't the same nation between the Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire, or after a dynasty change.
The interjection is pointless towards their argument because it doesn't understand the "logic" and is wrong in its own way.
His problem is that, as a truly stupid person, he isn't aware that the point he is trying to make is one reserved specifically for democracies, not nations, and is still wrong. The Roman Republic lasted for 482 years, just to start with the most famous "democratic" example, and Japan's government could be argued to have lasted 2,600 years depending on how much credit you want to give the mythological founding of their imperial family.
Further, the modern form of the United Kingdom government was founded in 1707. There have been changes, obviously, especially in the power balance between Lords and Commons, but the Acts of Union created what is indisputably a modern concept of nation and government.
Confederations of indigenous tribes qualify as nations by any reasonable definition. Most were democracies. Some still exist as sovereign democratic nations today.
Yeah I considered bringing that up but it's also not accurate to paint all the regional groups in that way. In hindsight I probably should have mentioned the Five/Six Nations at least.
Just takes one to disprove the original point that no nation is older than 250 years.
The UK was founded in 1707. The British crown family is even older than that.
Yeah, I just added that funnily enough.
"british" crown family.
Genocide has been a frequent practice for thousands of years, ever since the standard social unit was the tribe and one tribe would massacre another. Whole populations have been "put to the sword". The Americas are probably the largest single area, but if you really knew your history it would seem just as wild that Europeans and others around the world have forgotten about this.
Not as frequent as you claim. Many empires conquered foreign lands without genocide.
Interesting - I said "frequently" without any specific numbers, but apparently your non-numbers are lower. My bad.
Americans were straight up humane in their genocide vs. historical examples. Hell, I'd say Israel is doing worse today, not even pretending to make treaties, move people about, nothing.
"Straight up humane?" Dude in the 1800s there were times when people shot natives from passing trains for amusement. It's not a contest about who did it more nicely.
All I'm saying is that human history is full of far worse genocides than the Americans pulled on Native Americans.
Sure... Gaza is worse off that Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
The Israel-Hamas war has less than 0.003% of the casualties the US inflicted on Vietnam. That's not to say the Israel-Hamas War isn't a bad thing (all wars are) but just trying to snap you back from historical revisionism.
Vietnam had 16 times the population of Gaza at the time. So your 1.4 million ends up being 87,500 if you keep the ratio and that's over 20 years. Israel has passed 50,000 in less then 2 years.
Also, the fact that you can compare the current situation to what happened in Vietnam and Japan should give you a hint that you are defending the wrong party. This is far from the win you think it is. Defending those things would be unimaginable, you should think about what that means.
It's not the Israel-Hamas War, it's the genocide of the Palestinian people by a vile warmongering apartheid state.
I wouldn't say casualties really matter when it comes to genocide, what matters is the intent. The US were quite happy to wipe out the Native Americans and didn't exactly cry any tears as they did it, to the point where wiping out the Native Americans was such a sticking point to them that Britain demanding they not expand into Native American territory was actually a contributing factor to the Revolutionary War.
The Israelis pretend they aren't interested in wiping out the Palestinians, but they aren't exactly stopping the settlements driving out the remaining Palestinians and they're certainly pretty keen on ensuring no Palestinian returns to Gaza when they inevitably annex the place. The intent is there, it's just obfuscated.
I'd say they're pretty similar, at least in terms of intent. Both nations want to expand because they believe it's their god-given right to have that land, and the natives to that land need to either accept it or be 'removed'.
I'm on your side, 95% of the way but I don't think it's fair to the victims in Japan, Vietnam, Palestine etc to be part of a ranking. Just like there are bigger and smaller infinities, there are larger and smaller amounts of casualties. But in comparison to large and small infinities, those numbers do not show the hurt these people went true. In Japan for example, some died in an instant where others went through decades of physical decay because of the damage radiation did. How can that be put in numbers and compared to what happened to people in Vietnam for example.
You can leave out a comparison with a 'sure...you must have forgotten Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the 1.4 million civilian casualties in South Vietnam because of the war, including 415,000 deaths' for example.
He is arguing in bad faith. His only goal is to make the actions of the state of Israel seem less extreme. That's why he fails to mention the population differences and keeps using the term "Israel-Hamas war".
If you check the modlog you find gems like:
Thanks for checking that out
Thanks, noted.
0 fucks given for actual people living there indeed. Wow.
How many different countries has your pub survived?
I dunno, I'm pretty sure Japan is older.
Depends what you define as nation. Modern day Japan is only 157 years old since the Meiji Restoration started in 1868.
Like the US will still exist after the American empire collapses but sure as hell not in it’s current form.
I don't consider different eras as different nations though. I think that's splitting too many hairs. I see a nation as a country that is generally united and governed by a leading entity.
Going back to the Japan example, I would consider them a nation when all the clans were united under one rule. Same with UK, India, Thailand etc.
Then the US can only count since the civil war 🤷♂️ Or maybe since Hawaii's invasion (1959).
You could argue that modern Japan only exists since WWII. The major changes required after losing in WWII majorly changed the country.
You could also argue that the US is a new nation since the Civil War, so it's 160ish years old. If you ignore the civil war, what about when various states were added? Does the fact they were added gradually rather than all at once mean it's the same country? It's hard to argue that a country that was founded on the idea that all land-owning white males should get to vote is really the same as one that in 2022 believed that any citizen of any race or sex over the age of 18 should get a vote. Though, I suppose in some ways 2025 USA is showing it's still the same country as 1776 USA.
It's all pretty arbitrary though. What defines the start and end of a country? Does changing names count? Does changing borders? How radically does a government have to change to mean it's a new country? How radically do founding documents need to be changed? I guess it's the Country of Theseus. When is it no longer the same one?
The US civil war didn't overhaul the entire system of government though, like what happened to Japan after WWII
I would say the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the various enforcement acts in the early 1870s, etc. did overhaul the system of government, by changing what it meant to be a citizen, defining people's rights more explicitly, and outlawing slavery. Given that black people made up about 20% of the population, suddenly (theoretically) allowing them to vote and giving them the rights that non-slaves had was a pretty major change.
It's going to be turned into a Dave and busters.
And, later, just one enormous Spirit Halloween.
My country is 900 years old and my people has inhabited these lands before the romans ever dreamed of set foot here.
That is plain ignorance.
And how long has your current form of governance been in play? Money says not 250 years.
Are we speaking of government or established nation with defined borders in the original post?
As I understand it, it is refering to nation, not government.
That is not what defines its existence as a country though. If so then the US only dates to the 1990s with its latest constitutional amendment.
sure, but the person in the OP is foolishly conflating nations and states
Colloseum: Am I joke to you?
The beginning of egypt is further away to its end than today is from its end
True but ancient Egypt wasn't one long running state; it was a bunch of different states that rose and fell not unlike China.
c/shitamericanssay
You can link to communities like this: !shitamericanssay@lemmy.world
I wasn't aware there was one 😂
I'm pretty sure the Scandinavian countries are older than counting years with four digits.
Sweden has technically only existed since 1523 when we got our independance from Denmark. Norway has been under both Sweden and Denmark for numerous years until 1905 when the Swedish-Norwegian union ended. Denmark on the other hand has existed atleast since 863 as that is the first time it is mentioned. So it depends on how you count.
Oh those fucking danes, must always beat us :-/ waves swedish flag 😥
/jk
🇸🇪❤️🇩🇰
if there weren't people dumb enough to genuinely believe that the earth is flat, then i would assume it was a troll post.
but here we are...
Honest to god thought this was a Trump quote or some shit. Like read it in his voice and everything.
Are we sure he hasn't said this?
If I assume by the word "Pub" that they are in the UK, their country has only existed for 103 years. Obviously, that doesn't mean the end of the people, or the pubs, just the end of that system of government and/or territorial border.
There's no shame in it. Constitutions and bills of rights need to be updated as people become more enlightened and civilized. The US would certainly be better off if it had had more constitutional amendments over these 250 years. Maybe then it wouldn't need a revolution.
England Wales and Scotland are countries which are a lot older. Your semantics isnt really reflective of the truth
If you're going to count every little border change, then the US is only 66 years old - Alaska and Hawaii joined in 1959. If you're going to count every little constitutional revision, then the US is only 33 - the 27th amendment was finally ratified only in 1992.
Mate, the UK has existed for a touch over 103 years.
Depends on what you are counting as the start and end of a country like ours. In our current state/make up of countries, it's 103 years, when the Irish Free State left in 1922.
By that reckoning the US has only been around since 1959.
The UK of GB and NI is presumably what they're referring to. Whether or not you count changing territory and name as the beginning or end of a nation is subjective, I guess
If changing territory resets the count, then the US is only as old as when Hawaii or Alaska joined (I think Hawaii was the last addition? Dunno, I'm not an American...)
They were both in 1959, but Hawaii was later in the year.
In its current form, since 1922. The UK was created in 1801, so is 25 years younger than the US.
JFC American education system
Reading through these comments it isn't just the American education system. There's seemingly very few people in here with the understanding that Country and Nation are not full synonyms. The former is primarily about the age of a central government while the latter is mostly about shared culture and language.
So yes, the original tweet or whatever is ignorant but so are most of these comments...even the ones being made by non-Americans.
nation is a construct based on race and culture. nation is artificial, think it like a club. if you have a citizenship means you are included to nation but it doesnt mean to you are a part of race or culture. for more reading like there is a science branch called sociology!
Social science. Nothing written there is accepted as facts.
There's plenty of areas in this world where multi cultural people live with eachother and view eachother of the same nationality.
USA is probably the best example of this, because it lacks an original culture.
But I gotta admit, it's difficult to convince lots of diaspora that they are Belgian even though they are fucking born here lol
you commented like you didn't read half of my comment, again "nation" is construct if you keep using as term "race" it will keep confusing too. humans understands on naming on classification if you always act relative or mix terms all around we cant have a conversation, i am not saying accept my "terms" but we need to have a base or fundamental to speak or understand each other
What do you want to talk about? We don't need terms. Get rid of the terms. What in society is bothering you.
Terms are unnecessary. Use synonyms, use whatever. Explain it fluently as if I'm a quite young person. Like I would explain accountancy to you while trying to avoid the situation of you telling me that I'm talking Chinese to you.
The only base we need, is that in social science, you cannot take authority. There are no facts. One group of people can act completely different than another group of people, even though everything is exactly the same beside the people themselves. Their personalities will alter quite a lot already.
So let's talk about what you want to talk about.
ok.
Uhu