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.
Who did the US get independence from, buddy?
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.
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.
Egypt, anyone?
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
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 believe the ottoman empire (1299–1922) would like a word.
England would like a word. It formed in 927 AD. That means it is 1,098 years old.
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 Our legal system and government structure is woefully outdated, but our country is really young.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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
They inspired a lot of longer lasting constitutions in other countries
Because other countries modernize it. Well America worships it as a god. Even though it has been changed before.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Black people where a quarter of a person at one point.
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?
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.
In the case of the US, yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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”.
San Marino
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.
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
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.
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.
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 are basing that on the Constitution, which has changed considerably over America’s history.
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.
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.
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.
So you mean the usa never modernise? Checks out…
You’re talking about “a country”, the guy in the OP talks about “a nation”. Pretty vast difference between the two.
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):
joined the Prussian-led German Empire in 1871 while retaining its title of kingdom, and finally became a state of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949.
