Transcript
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”.
You must log in or register to comment.
The 250 year thing is basically complete BS
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.
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.
It’s not like when France overthrew its monarchy they stopped being France or seeing themselves as French.
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.
Royalty was like dandelions. No matter how many heads you chopped off, the roots were still there underground, waiting to spring up again.
It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: “Kings. What a good idea.” Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.
― Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay
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.
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.
And so, if we don’t do ‘direct continuation’, the USA are older than France? Is that what you mean?
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
So the average American sees their entire history as starting at 1776
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.
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!
Pleak times for being a troll. Nobody understands anymore if you are only dumb or provoking.
That’s by design. The Republican Party has actively, deliberately suppressed the teaching of Critical Thinking in schools.
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.
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…
France, Switzerland, england, bavaria, brandenburg, vatican, spain, netherlands, denmark, sweden, portugal
I could go on and on
deleted by creator
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.
I’ll bet not 1 American in 100 know that there was a time when Sweden was a dominant superpower in Europe.
deleted by creator
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”.
Arguably, I believe America is the oldest constitutional nation.
That would be San Marino.
most other countries still have their constitution though
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.
Even british constitutionalism is older
well that ended pretty recently unfortunately
San Marino
Anything outside of Europe?
Japan, tibet, mongolia, iran, ethiopia, mali, kongo, thailand
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.
You’re talking about “a country”, the guy in the OP talks about “a nation”. Pretty vast difference between the two.
You are basing that on the Constitution, which has changed considerably over America’s history.
So you mean the usa never modernise? Checks out…
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.
Changes of government don’t mean an entirely new country…
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.
In the 1700s only landowners could vote.
White, male landowners - I’m just guessing here.
Obviously
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.
vatican
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 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.
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.
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.
Does this person not understand how dates work?
This person doesn’t understand how books work. Calendars & history? doubt…
I assume they are talking about the US government being one of the longest running continuous systems of government.
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)
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.
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.
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.
“let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates”
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:
Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right
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.
Yet today, authoritarian tools in the supreme court
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.
Because other countries modernize it. Well America worships it as a god. Even though it has been changed before.
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.
Worse, it’s like a teen athlete being really proud that he has the world record for best stickballer, so he drops out of school to play stickball full time.
Then when everybody else wants to play an actual sport with actual rules where people wear helmets and don’t die, suddenly the teen starts starts swinging his stick through people’s windows and at people’s heads.
Your analogy has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is about the age of the countries, and their constitutions.
Yes, I’m suggesting that the US constitution was impressive and exciting and set a lot of new records, but everyone quickly moved onto bigger and better things while the US lagged behind pretending its outdated rules were still the best in the world.
So it’s like a teen who’s really proud of having the oldest sneakers of all the competitors then.
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”
‘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.
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.
The UK was founded in 1707.
“british” crown family.
Yeah, I just added that funnily enough.
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.
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.
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.
Sure… Gaza is worse off that Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
A 1975 U.S. Senate subcommittee estimated around 1.4 million civilian casualties in South Vietnam because of the war, including 415,000 deaths. An estimate by the Department of Defense after the war gave a figure of 1.2 million civilian casualties, including 195,000 deaths
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.
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’.
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 10 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’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:
The use of the word genocide is political.
Until that happens, Gaza should be treated like any fascist state that throws rockets at its neighbor.
Thanks, noted.
Gaza should be treated like any fascist state that throws rockets at its neighbor.
0 fucks given for actual people living there indeed. Wow.
Thanks for checking that out
“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.
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.
Yea there are a few buildings in my area that have been there for more than 250 years.
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.
brazil is 500 and something
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.
sure, but the person in the OP is foolishly conflating nations and states
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.
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.
