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 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
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.
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.
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”
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.
Because other countries modernize it. Well America worships it as a god. Even though it has been changed before.
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,
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.
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
sure, but the person in the OP is foolishly conflating nations and states
I believe the ottoman empire (1299–1922) would like a word.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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 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’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 for checking that out
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.
Removed by mod
“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.
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.
“british” crown family.
Yeah, I just added that funnily enough.
Wait till these people find out about Japan.
And fucking China.
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?
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.
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.
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?
The Edo Period alone spanned 268 years. The Heian Period nearly made it to 400.
Even if you evaluate these as district, 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Mate, the UK has existed for a touch over 103 years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
