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.
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 Our legal system and government structure is woefully outdated, but our country is really young.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lot of new records, but everyone quickly moved onto bigger and better things while the US lagged behind pretending its outdated rules were still the best in the world.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.
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
England would like a word. It formed in 927 AD. That means it is 1,098 years old.
France, Switzerland, england, bavaria, brandenburg, vatican, spain, netherlands, denmark, sweden, portugal
I could go on and on
San Marino
Anything outside of Europe?
Japan, tibet, mongolia, iran, ethiopia, mali, kongo, thailand
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the 1700s only landowners could vote.
White, male landowners - I’m just guessing here.
Obviously
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.
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.
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.
So you mean the usa never modernise? Checks 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.
deleted by creator
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.
It probably has a more stable foundation too!
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.
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.
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?
Absolutely.
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?
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 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.
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 250 year thing is basically complete BS
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.
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.
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.
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.
England Wales and Scotland are countries which are a lot older. Your semantics isnt really reflective of the truth
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.
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
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.
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.
