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 # 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 Our legal system and government structure is woefully outdated, but our country is really young.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lot of new records, but everyone quickly moved onto bigger and better things while the US lagged behind pretending its outdated rules were still the best in the world.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.
Constitutionalism is a new idea. Pioneered by America. Of course America will have the oldest until it collapses.
Because other countries modernize it. Well America worships it as a god. Even though it has been changed before.
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.
They inspired a lot of longer lasting constitutions in other countries
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The UK dates back to 1801, when the parliaments of Scotland and Ireland were abolished and the UK Parliament established.
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.
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, damn
That would be 753 years ?
2225 - 1472
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.
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.
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.
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, 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
China: lol, lmao
China, also: your dynasty is closing in on 300 years, huh? Good luck!
“lol” —Mao
Laughing out loud my ass off
“rofl” - Mao
Lmao - Mao
The nation which hasn’t existed as it currently is for even 100 years yet (and is already falling apart)?
China didn’t just lose who they used to be, they deliberately murdered their old nation.
The People’s Republic of China will be 76 years old this October.
The OP is wrong because there are a few existing nations older than 250 years, but there aren’t many of them. As far as countries go, the United States is over the hill.
Its nonsense. China as a national and cultural entity is not 76 years old. Changing constitutions does not make it a different country, it is only americans who adhere to that belief system because their country didnt exist prior to their constitution.
The 250 year thing is basically complete BS
Dumb people hear something, misunderstand it, and repeat an incorrect version with authority and without any critical thinking. I’m sure this person heard that the US is the oldest existing democracy. The next oldest, depending on the criteria you use, is probably Switzerland at 175+ years. But does this person really think that the US has existed longer than, say, the ancient Egyptians, the Ottomans, the Byzantines, etc.?
The oldest existing democracy is Iceland depending on how you define democracy. But that was around 930 ad and had free men participating in making laws
depending on how you define democracy.
This part of your comment seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting.
According to the ancient manuscript Landnámabók, the settlement of Iceland began in 874 AD, when the Norwegian chieftain Ingólfr Arnarson became the island’s first permanent settler.[15] In the following centuries, Norwegians, and to a lesser extent other Scandinavians, immigrated to Iceland, bringing with them thralls (i.e., slaves or serfs) of Gaelic origin. The island was governed as an independent commonwealth under the native parliament, the Althing, one of the world’s oldest functioning legislative assemblies. After a period of civil strife, Iceland acceded to Norwegian rule in the 13th century. In 1397, Iceland followed Norway’s integration into the Kalmar Union along with the kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden, coming under de facto Danish rule upon its dissolution in 1523. The Danish kingdom introduced Lutheranism by force in 1550,[16] and the Treaty of Kiel formally ceded Iceland to Denmark in 1814.
Influenced by ideals of nationalism after the French Revolution, Iceland’s struggle for independence took form and culminated in the Danish–Icelandic Act of Union in 1918, with the establishment of the Kingdom of Iceland, sharing through a personal union the incumbent monarch of Denmark. During the occupation of Denmark in World War II, Iceland voted overwhelmingly to become a republic in 1944, ending the remaining formal ties to Denmark. Although the Althing was suspended from 1799 to 1845, Iceland nevertheless has a claim to sustaining one of the world’s longest-running parliaments. Until the 20th century, Iceland relied largely on subsistence fishing and agriculture. Industrialization of the fisheries and Marshall Plan aid after World War II brought prosperity, and Iceland became one of the world’s wealthiest and most developed nations. In 1950, Iceland joined the Council of Europe.[17] In 1994 it became a part of the European Economic Area, further diversifying its economy into sectors such as finance, biotechnology, and manufacturing.
It does a lot of heavy lifting when defining the US to be a democracy too.
You’d have to be a white supremacist to think the US was a democracy when slavery existed. Sure some people may have been voting, but there were Lords in a lot of places in Europe voting on stuff for a very long time.
We may as well say the Holy Roman Empire was a democracy because people voted for who would be Emperor. Sure the peasants didn’t get to vote, but it doesn’t matter if not every one gets to vote? Or does it?
And how you define nation/country. You could say the Isle of Mann, but it probably doesn’t meet the definition.
Those are not nations in the modern sense. Modern Turkey and Egypt have only been around since after WWI. Byzantium hasn’t been a nation since they were conquered by the Ottomans.
The post doesn’t say existing nations, it says there has never been one longer than 250 years.
How do you define a nation? Rome, Byzantium, the Ottoman empire, etc., those were all empires. You can debate whether you want to consider them nations.
Same for the US, if you want to debate semantics.
Lol debating semantics is exactly what’s happening in this post
The US is an empire unless indigenous peoples don’t count
If a country has ethnic/lingual, racial, gender/sexual, or wealth requirements is it really a democracy?
I’m not convinced that the USA was a democracy prior to 1964.
When Greeks invented the term they stipulated only free men were able to vote. So depending on how you want to look at it, any country that allows free men to vote is a democracy. We’ve (modern people) just updated the terms of service to suit our current version of morality. We might decide our thinking outdated and misguided in the next 250 years and change things again. Hell we might even give trans people, women and people of colour equal rights to white men, you know, like legal protections and such. We might not try to suppress their votes… idk has anything actually changed since 1964 or did Americans just visit the moon?
Yeah words are a cultural construct, we’re speaking modern English so I don’t really care a ton about the word choices of philosophers 2500 years ago speaking a different language.
We should definitely make sure that our society provides rights for all, and work towards a truly representative democracy.
I think things have definitely changed since 1964.
In that case there wasn’t any democracy up until maybe 100 years ago (no clue what country first ticked all the boxes, or when)
Yeah 100 years seems like a good guess. Basically the aftermath of ww1.
US is the oldest existing democracy
It is not. Not a democracy, at least in its modern sense.
It wasn’t one back then either. Women and black people weren’t allowed to vote from the start.
The US didnt become a democracy until the civil rights act in 1964.
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
Man, imagine being so fucking dense you literally ignore the nation that created yours, which is still around. Inglun? Wazzat?
About 15 years ago, I got to go on a road trip across the states. 6 weeks, driving from east coast to west coast.
On more than one occasion, when we were inevitably asked where we were from and dutifully replied “England.”, we were met with utterly blank stares.
“Uhhhhhhhh, Engerland?” “You mean New England? Never met anyone from there before…”
“No, England. Old England. The original England, capital city, London. That England.”
“London? That’s just north of here… I don’t get it.”
I swear, the sheer ignorance and lack of basic understanding of the geography of our world was fucking staggering in some places. Not always the armpit of nowhere “towns” either.
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.
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.
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
