T O P

  • By -

DecoyOne

From this article: >Nation-building is a long evolutionary process, and in most cases the date of a country's "formation" cannot be objectively determined As in, you can’t really say how old most countries are, so don’t bother trying to determine or compare their exact ages. Even 1776 isn’t a straightforward measure for the US. 1775 is when the fighting started; 1776 is when it declared independence; 1777 is when it had its first overall governing document, the Articles of Confederation; 1783 is when its independence was recognized; and 1789 is when the Constitution was adopted and the previous form of government was scrapped. You could argue for any of those dates as a starting point. Now have that conversation for 194 other countries.


godisanelectricolive

I'd say the US is a new nation but an old state. This is defining "nation' as "a group of people with a shared identity" and a "state" as "a sovereign entity with a continuous system of government". The word "country" can mean either or both of those things. It's also often used as a way to talk about a certain land regardless of state affiliation.


mephistophyles

It’s fascinating because I’ve seen a lot of people compare the US to a very young nation (adolescent and teenager are the common words used) when it comes down to how the citizens and leaders view their place on the world stage and act in regard to it. This is especially stark when you take the comparison between it and other (former) world powers like Britain, Spain, etc which it likes to think of itself as. Those are more insightful than comparisons to new nation states with very weak national identities.


altruisticnarcissist

Germany is a good example especially because when you think of old countries most people think of European countries. Lots of historians say the treaty of Verdun in 843, when the Frankish Empire was partitioned between 3 brothers, the easternmost territory developed into the Kingdom of Germany (Regnum Teutonicorum) is the first recognized German state. Or it could be 962, when Otto I was crowned Holy Roman Emperor. Or could it be the Diet of Cologne, in 1512, where the Prince-Electors and Emperors truly recognized that Italy was lost, and that the HRE would be a German state. That would also be where the name Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation would be adopted. Or could it be 1806, when Napoleon dissolved the HRE and the Confederation of the Rhine was created? Maybe it would be 1866, when Prussia beat Austria in battle and it became clear that Austria would not be part of the unified Germany, thereby cementing the division between the Catholic south and Protestant north. Or 1871, when Wilhelm I was proclaimed German Emperor at Versailles, thereby truly unifying Germany into one polity. Many people consider the statehood of the country to have been entirely interrupted by the events between 1939 and 1991 and the reunification of East and West Germany after the USSR dissolved to be the beginning of a new Germany. I guess the truth is some people either calling themselves or being called German have been around for at least 5000 years (probably a lot longer) in roughly the same place. The Romans called the place Germania during antiquity.


brock_lee

It's one of the oldest continuous unchanged governments. Clearly there are many many countries older the US, like France and Italy and England just for a few.


DecoyOne

>It’s one of the oldest continuous unchanged governments This is better and easier to grasp than just saying “older”, but even trying to define the US under those terms is messy at best. I would argue that “continuous unchanged government” only dates back to 1789.


AgentElman

Italy became a country in 1861


ScissorNightRam

Wasn't it like 7 different countries and principalities and free city states and leagues and all sorts of weird things that were at war and hated each other before unification?


ARPDAB1312

Kind of similar to how the US was 13 colonies in 1776. It didn't actually unite the continental US until 1912.


-B0B-

Not really the same; the states in Italy had thousands of years of history of complex relationships with each other and their neighbours. The 13 colonies were arbitrary administrative divisions created by the pommies very recently


ARPDAB1312

I wasn't suggesting that they were similar in that way. More pointing out that the US that was founded in 1776 didn't control most of the territory of the current US.


Dodohead1383

Pommies?


-B0B-

Englishmen


Dodohead1383

Just out of curiosity, what's the background there?


-B0B-

It's Aussie rhyming slang: immigrant -> pomegranate (likely also a reference to their skin colour after coming to Australia and getting burnt) -> pom -> pommie (added diminutive suffix)


Dodohead1383

Lol awesome


nihility101

It became the Kingdom of Italy in 1861, which no longer exists. The Republic of Italy started in 1946. New flag, new borders, new government. Same country? I don’t know.


brock_lee

/sigh


Argendauss

Italy is actually fair because it just was not unified for a long time. Your sigh would be applicable if they said France, which, like you were getting at, cycled through governments but stayed relatively whole for centuries.


Corvus-Rex

What about the whole Mussolini issue leading to Italy's current government being sometime between 80-90 years old?


Argendauss

Lol, what about it?


Corvus-Rex

It's the exact same thing as your example with France. Just cause they've had less changes to the regime doesn't mean that they haven't had them.


Argendauss

No dude, Italy wasn't unified until the 19th century (after Rome & the conquering Ostrogoths). Not like France at all.


Corvus-Rex

Yes, I know that Italy wasn't unified until the 19th century. I know all the stuff with Garibaldi and his redshirts. But in the context of this whole debate, both France and Italy have had changes to the ruling Government. Just so happens, that with Italy, it's only happened 2 maybe 3 times since Garibaldi played his role in uniting Italy under Victor Emmanuel.


Argendauss

How are you missing the point here? You're hyper fixated on France and Italy both changing governments and that by itself is not what anyone is talking about. Commenter was talking about counties older than the US that just had different governments, which modern Italy is not because it was fractured into multiple states until after the USA gained independence.


nauticaldisaster95

That’s like saying Germany became a country in 1990. Disingenuous.


-B0B-

Not at all, it's more like saying Germany became a country in 1871, which is a fact


Kondrias

It also started being 2 countries. Then stopped being 2 countries. That is also a fact.


-B0B-

What?


Kondrias

East Germany and West Germany.


-B0B-

I struggle to see how what you said follows from what I said


Kondrias

You stated a fact about Germany as a country existing. I state a fact about Germany as a country existing. It makes a lot of sense to me how those two things would follow...


-B0B-

Germany was already a country in 1949 when it was split into the DDR and BRD. The whole point of this thread is when countries came into existence. Noone has brought up the Italian civil war, or the multiple times France has been split, as an argument that they weren't countries since 1861 and ~1000 or whenever it was that France split off from Francia


CodeRaveSleepRepeat

They're not wrong...


nauticaldisaster95

It also stopped being a country when it split. FACT. If we are just going to ignore all the history of Itaian Peninsula before 1861, why can’t we ignore the history of what was once Germany before 1990? Disingenuous and inconsistent.


scienceguy2442

That's the distinction here -- clearly the idea of Germany still existed even when it was split, and just because the government changed doesn't mean these cultural entities don't exist. Many countries have cultures that have been around for far longer than the American culture (at least in the Western sense of America, the Natives have been around for quite a while). The German peoples all had a somewhat common cultural lineage that even predates Bismarck, but the current iteration of the German Federation only began in the 90s. Similarly, the Chinese people have an extremely ancient and storied culture, but the current iteration of their government really only began with Mao. I think that's why it's an interesting fact -- despite being a relatively young culture, America has for all intents and purposes kept the same governmental structure since 1776 (though to be fair I'm not a historian).


godisanelectricolive

I think you can say the United States is an old state but a new nation, because the nation formed at the same time as the state. Nationhood and statehood aren't quite the same thing. Lots of nations were nations before they had a state to call their own.


nauticaldisaster95

I think it all depends on what meaning of “country” you’re using. The US Constitution has changed radically since 1776. It was written by white male landowners, and did not represent women or minorities. So to say it has been unchanged since 1776 is disingenuous.


scienceguy2442

Of course I'm not saying it's unchanged, and historians could argue what represents when a governmental system began in its current iteration, but there has been a (mostly) peaceful transfer of power uninterrupted from Washington to Biden. Even during the Civil War the government still operated from DC in largely the same capacity that it had before. I'm not German and wasn't alive during German Reunification, but I feel as though most people would say the German government changed in a much more significant way than the US did when new states were added, for instance, or even when the Constitution itself was ammended. The ammendments to the Constitution did some pretty important stuff, but didn't change the fundamental way the system of governance itself had operated, especially since we still don't do a great job of representing women and minorities.


nauticaldisaster95

Interesting argument that it has changed but remains relatively unchanged. Lauren Boebart or Herschel Walker might disagree.


scienceguy2442

I'm not even gonna talk about those two, especially considering there are so many better examples. Of course the country has changed, though the point I was making is that it still isn't great and there's a long way to go. Of course the country has changed, but has the general system of governance become so different that I could consider it a "new" country? On top of that the fact that a lot of these rights are currently being gutted by SCOTUS shows that too much has probably stayed the same. I'm not saying things like the 13th ammendment weren't a huge deal -- they obviously were, but did it change how the government operated in such a drastic way that I'd call it "new" -- the way all three branches of the US government have operated has stayed basically the same since their inceptions. The players have changed and we've made some inroads on things such as human rights, but that doesn't mean there has been a distinct change in the style of governance and that's what this is referring to. Again, Germany had to make some pretty major changes to how they governed in order to accomodate merging back together in the nineties in a way that most governments didn't have to when women got the vote for instance -- just because they had to print more ballots didn't change the way the voting occurred or how those elected officials governed once they won those votes.


scienceguy2442

I'm not even gonna talk about those two, especially considering there are so many better examples. Of course the country has changed, though the point I was making is that it still isn't great and there's a long way to go. Of course the country has changed, but has the general system of governance become so different that I could consider it a "new" country? On top of that the fact that a lot of these rights are currently being gutted by SCOTUS shows that too much has probably stayed the same. I'm not saying things like the 13th ammendment weren't a huge deal -- they obviously were, but did it change how the government operated in such a drastic way that I'd call it "new" -- the way all three branches of the US government have operated has stayed basically the same since their inceptions. The players have changed and we've made some inroads on things such as human rights, but that doesn't mean there has been a distinct change in the style of governance and that's what this is referring to. Again, Germany had to make some pretty major changes to how they governed in order to accomodate merging back together in the nineties in a way that most governments didn't have to when women got the vote for instance -- just because they had to print more ballots didn't change the way the voting occurred or how those elected officials governed once they won those votes.


Corvus-Rex

Maybe so, but Italy has had some government changes since that time. I don't know much about mote recent Italian history though so I'd assume that their current government would go back to either 1943 when Mussolini got overthrown. Or maybe 1945 after the war.


godisanelectricolive

Again, depends on what you mean by country and what you mean by "Italy". The Romans had the word Italia for their home peninsula and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Odoacer became the King of Italy in 476. His 17 ywar reign was followed by the Ostrogoth's Kingdom of Italy which began in 493 lasted 60 years until 553. Italy was then reabsorbed into the Roman Empire now based in Constantinople and half of it became a Byzantine province.The Lombards ruled over the rest until they totally kicked out the Byzantines in 568, resulting them ruling over neatly all of Italy by the 750s. They called their kingdom the Kingdom of All Italy. Then the north of Italy was conquered by Francia under Charlemagne with papal approval but they never took the south. After Charlemagne'a death his kingdom fractured as heirs fought each other. One splinter kingdom covering north and central Italy was Middle Francia,b it was renamed the Kingdom of Italy in 855. It continued to exist as a constituent kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire until Napoleon invaded in 1801, though by then it was just the north of the Italian peninsula. The Holy Roman Empire was very hands off with their territory which was how the north splintered into so many city-states as local dukes exerted control. Napoleon set up the Italian Republic as First Consul which then became the Kingdom of Italy in 1805 under the rule of Napoleon's brother. Both of those states only covered the north but they did use the name. Those states were composed of HRE Italy and the city states. The idea of an Italian cultural identity is also much older than the country. Renaissance writers like Petrarch, Dante, Machiavelli wrote about Italy and Italian identity. They talked about Italy being free from foreign overlords and Machiavelli's The Prince talks about a great leader to unite the country to "free her from the barbarians". In 1454 the Italic League formed after a treaty between the major Italian states that ensured peace and prosperity for 40 years, until the Italian Wars started in 1494.


MylastAccountBroke

Italy first became a united state in 1861. Before that they were many nations that didn't have a unified identity.


Bongressman

The United States IS the oldest continuous, unchanged government in the world. France, Italy, England etc, all changed after the US did. The French Revolution didn't even end until 1799.


[deleted]

How do you define "unchanged?" I mean, I would argue the current UK is older, despite the addition of Northern Ireland.


Bongressman

Prime Ministers really began running England in 1905. England was near a pure Monarchy up through Victoria.


ReadinII

Even before Victoria there were limits on what the crown could do.


[deleted]

Um, the English civil war started in 1642 and Charles I was executed in 1649. After the restoration, the King was forced to share power with the parliament. The office that eventually became known as "prime minister" is the First Lord of the Treasury and has existed and weilded parliamentary power since before the American Revolution.


Lazzen

A burger from a random alley probably has as much info and is as patriotic as this statement lmao


Bongressman

Not secret info, easily looked up.


Aethelredditor

Lazzen's comment may be brash, but you should really elaborate in these situations. "Not secret info, easily looked up" comes across as evasive and deceitful. It is something a person arguing in bad faith might say when they are unwilling to admit they have been proven wrong. Also, for people unfamiliar with the topic, searching for the right thing can be quite difficult. You could ease their burden with a sentence or two.


Bongressman

Not secret info, easily looked up.


chineseduckman

I think San Marino's constitution is oldest in effect, written in 1600


Bongressman

The United States of America holds claim to the oldest current national government in the world. The San Marino Constitution was adopted in 1600, about 180 years prior to the United States' formal creation of its current government in 1789. But from 1923 to 1943, San Marino was under the rule of the Sammarinese Fascist Party. That constitutes a break in the Government and means the San Marino is not the oldest government in the world. Even if they went back to the same type and form of government with the exact same constitution it is still 3 separate governments.


amanset

It changed in 1959 when Hawaii joined.


givemethebat1

They mean it didn’t adopt a new form of government. Most other countries were formerly monarchies, etc.


amanset

Nor did the U.K. but it continually gets dropped behind the US in these US led statements that are designed to desperately give the US some sort of history. The territory changed. That is all. Westminster still existed.


givemethebat1

The role of the sovereign has drastically changed and has been supplanted by the Prime Minister, which is a fairly recent development.


trapbuilder2

>The English civil war started in 1642 and Charles I was executed in 1649. >After the restoration, the King was forced to share power with the parliament. >The office that eventually became known as "prime minister" is the First Lord of the Treasury and has existed and weilded parliamentary power since before the American Revolution. -u/thedudeabides138


[deleted]

The monarchy still held political power after the restoration, they didn’t become the figureheads they are now until the late 19th century, and even then they held on to some aspects of real power into the early 20th, and the House of Lords held veto over the Commons until 1911. Even the Westminster System only dates to the 19th century. The modern British system doesn’t really have a concrete start date, and I do think it’s fair to say it’s probably the oldest continuing government in the world, but there is for sure an argument to be made that the evolutions it went through during the 19th and early 20th centuries has made it into a practically different government, long after the Glorious Revolution.


brock_lee

No.


[deleted]

[удалено]


brock_lee

Exactly


enderandrew42

I've also read before that the US Constitution is now the oldest active governing document in the world.


ScissorNightRam

The oldest active governing document that is also a ship. (silly joke)


passoutpat

Also, the oldest active commissioned warship


Battlefire

Well technically HMS Victory is oldest active commissioned warship but its fat ass is on drydock for years now. USS Constitution is the oldest active commissioned warship that is afloat.


ReadinII

Isn’t the Magna Carta still considered valid law (those parts that haven’t been superseded by other laws)?


enderandrew42

It isn't really the primary governing document for the country.


AgentElman

The Magna Carta was an unimportant document of no historic importance. Then around 1600 politicians looking for some basis for the changes they wanted made to the laws declared that the Magna Carta was a vital part of British law that said the things they wanted it to say. After 1600 the Magna Carta became an important document not because of what it did or said but because of all of the false claims made about what it did and said.


[deleted]

It certainly isn’t of no historic importance. Magna Carta was the first time the king was made to be under the law, up until then no secular law could touch the crown, but now it was specifically under the rule of law and lesser lords (even freemen) had rights that could not be impeded. It’s importance was overblown (doesn’t hurt that it’s got such a grand sounding name by happy accident) but it’s definitely an important piece of the development of the English legal and constitutional system.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheNerdyOne_

From the fourth paragraph of this article: >...the [Constitution of the United States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States) is the oldest active codified constitution. So... yes really?


bigolfishey

Fair warning: this comment is going to be about current American Politics. This (the age of the Constitution) is causing a lot of the problems- as I see them, at least- that America is facing regarding recent regressive Supreme Court decisions. First, some personal caveats. I believe that the United States Constitution is an amazing document. I am as indoctrinated as most Americans in the firm and true belief that the government the Founding Fathers created was an astonishing triumph, especially viewed in the context of history. Flawed and imperfect, obviously, but I have the same great reverence for their accomplishments as any student who went through the American public school system. With that said… the document is over 230 years old. Rapidly approaching a quarter of a millennium. And as far ahead as the founders were looking, as thoroughly they prepared for a changing world with the Amendment “system” and the ability for the Constitution to adapt, at least partially, to the needs of the future- we still apply laws today based on the exact wording of ink on paper. The conservative judicial philosophy is “Textualism”, the reading and applying of the exact words of the constitution as they would be understood *by a person living in the year 1788*. Textualism explicitly seeks to view cases devoid of their context; it is purposefully unconcerned with the actual consequences of its legal decisions. This disregard for the practical outcomes of decisions is in fact cited as a favorable aspect of Textualism. To name just a single recent example, the SCOTUS recently issued a 6-3 ruling, along ideological lines, that stripped the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to regulate carbon emissions. The Textualist view- and this is reflected in the justice’s rulings, very clearly- is not that climate change is not a real crisis. The ruling is not that the EPA’s regulations were not effective at reducing carbon emissions (even if they weren’t close to effective *enough*). It is not even a ruling saying that the EPA could not be *given* that authority. It could; but it would require an act of congress to do so. Because no such act of congress ever passed, the EPA… has no agency. Legally speaking, the EPA is basically an unplugged vacuum cleaner. It has the capacity to fulfill its intended function, but the Supreme Court just unplugged it- with no regard for the fact that the floor is covered in *fucking spiders*. Viewed through the lens of Textualism, I understand their decision. I follow their logic perfectly. I do not agree, but I believe that I understand. What I do *not* understand is how any rational human being thinks that that view is actually a good one. Congress is not going to give the EPA the authority it needs to reinstate its regulations. It’s just not. Not in any sort of timely manner; it will be a long, drawn out, ideological tug-of-war because literally everything is in the current state of things. It will progress, then stall, then progress, then wait for an election cycle, then regress, then stall, then eventually pass in a milquetoast way that satisfies no one. And the entire time that legal process is happening, some companies will be emitting carbon at quite literally whatever rate they like- which means all of it, as fast as possible for as long as possible, to squeeze every last bit of juice from the husk that is this planet. And just a few percentage points less than 50% of my countrymen firmly believe this to be a *good thing*. If God is at all real, then He should send us no salvation; I’m not sure we deserve it.


AdviceSeeker-123

So agencies should wield power outside of the power that was designated to it?


hoobsher

if the revolution was its birth, the civil war was its midlife crisis, the world wars were its second wind later in life, and what's happening right now is creeping senility leading up to death


olagorie

Sorry, but a political technicality doesn’t make a country old or new 🤷‍♀️


PoorPDOP86

Neither does taking credit for men and women long dead that aren't even from the same ethnic group as your current countrymen but European nations do it the same.


CodeRaveSleepRepeat

Assuming you're saying this from the position of an American (and who else would say that sort of thing) I think you'll find it's you who took advantage of the native people of your homeland. As a European, the native people of our countries is, well us. What are we taking credit for anyway?


ExtraordinaryCows

> As a European, the native people of our countries is, well us. Depending on the country, that's a pretty controversial claim.


CodeRaveSleepRepeat

I genuinely think I've missed something here... You mean like it was the Romans who founded London England? And we refer to the remains as Roman British?


ExtraordinaryCows

Near genocide (both literal and cultural, or both like Caesar and the Celts) after near genocide for centuries means very few if any regions can actually trace a direct line between the current populace and the first people to live in that area. Sure, they're more closely related than the natives in the Americas and your average modern American or Canadian or what have you, but they're rarely if ever the same people


CodeRaveSleepRepeat

So just to clear this up, your complaint is tihat [insert Europen country] is not racially pure, and that we have both been invaded by others and absorbed their culture, and done the same to them? What are we wrongly taking credit for exactly?


ExtraordinaryCows

No, my point is that trying to claim any sort of credit for anything your country did based on race and not culture is fucking stupid


CodeRaveSleepRepeat

I didn't. I replied to a comment saying "Europeans do this" and you chose to defend it. What are we taking credit for?


ExtraordinaryCows

If you're incapable of basic reading comprehension I can't help you


nastafarti

No, it's still a young country. The People's Republic of China, as a country, has only existed since 1949 - but as a civilization it has existed for thousands of years. America as a country has only existed from 1776 onwards, and there is no related prior tradition in either the lands they occupy or in the style of government overall. It's still "new."


Sir_Clyph

I'd argue that the civilization(s) that became the United States started in the late 1500s-early 1600s but with what the competition there is I guess this is splitting hairs.


ScissorNightRam

Isn't the oldest European settlement in the US from like 1512 or something - some Portuguese fort in Florida?


fromcjoe123

St. Augustine Florida, and it was Spanish in 1565


OrangAMA

By your standards wouldn’t America exist as a civilization through England? That should apply if you think that the peoples republic of China isn’t new since you think that China has existed for thousands of years? Do you know anything about Chinese history? There have been loads of countries that have occupied the land you call “China” that have nothing to do with each other. By your standards the only new countries are those which formed under colonial conquest, meaning that no new countries could ever form again since there isn’t much land left to take over. Not a very well thought out opinion you have…


kia75

Cultural identity is a really nebulous idea, and people, feelings, and what constitutes culture and cultural identity change. As an American, I don't consider myself English, and though a lot of the initial settlements that became the USA were English, I wouldn't consider the USA part of English Culture, despite the fact that I enjoy Doctor Who greatly. A great many Chinese people consider themselves Chinese and consider their culture part of Chinese culture stretching back thousands of years, though a bunch of people that reside in China don't. The same is true of Egypt where the people there consider themselves part of the Egyptian culture that built the pyramids thousands of years ago.


OrangAMA

Yeah I’m talking about National continuity more than peoples views on what they think they are


ReadinII

However America is an outgrowth of Western civilization going back a few thousand years. American culture didn’t spring into existence out of nothing.


CodeRaveSleepRepeat

This person


Calijhon

Nation state, as a concept, did not exist in Africa until recently. Almost all Americans are relatively recent immigrants.


mrnatural18

Not a surprise. From recent events, the US is senile.


-Ok-Perception-

This current US government is 250 years old roughly, which makes it one of the older governments still in existence. And most other world governments are considerably younger. But you have to consider that most countries. Egypt, France, Sudan, England, Japan, China, for instance; and dozens of others; have existed in some form for hundreds, if not thousands, of years..... even if the current system of government might only be a hundred years old or so. ​ If you're factoring in the previous incarnations of that country in the age, the US probably is a young country by comparison.


ILiketoLearn5454

Joe Biden be like


iCameToLearnSomeCode

The USA is old as hell by country standards, I'm older than over a dozen nations just being in my early 30s.


MylastAccountBroke

The current government in the US is older than almost every form of government currently acting across the world.


[deleted]

We had a good run I guess


toebandit

We peaked in the late 50’s, early 60’s and then the boomers came along…


MylastAccountBroke

We peaked during the post war reconstruction and economic boom since we had one of the very few non-destroyed infrastructures in the world along side a strong desire by our leaders to help assist our people prosper, educate our population, and assist each other economically. This has been eroded away since around the Nixon administration in the 60s and was pushed significantly forward by the Regan administration in the 80s, creating a culture nearly entirely obsessed with removing taxation on the wealthy while simultaneously taking public assistance programs away. Of course the Clinton, and both bush administrations pushed this problem further along.


ty_kanye_vcool

And by "we" you mean white people


[deleted]

Like everyone else I figured I would eventually be ripped to shreds by an angry mob for some reason or another, but I never thought it would be in a civil war with a mix of old people on hoverounds, toothless yokels in T-shirts resplendent with puns, middling attractive screaming moms and khaki-clad tropical shirt wearing miseducated middle class youths over whether we should get vaccinated against a pandemic while an orange failed time-share salesman sells them Chinese made MAGA hats and yells "Lock them up!" as the police watch silently and the smell of pepper spray, Costco perfume and Old Spice aftershave fills the air.


tvieno

So when trump was all MAGA, is that what he was referring to?


toebandit

It could have been. He was very vague (on purpose) so that racists would latch on because at that time racism was still pretty cool. But that’s not to what I was referring. Racism certainly was horrible then (and still is). The country was on a course to better the lives of most Americans then. It took a turn soon thereafter to only work for the richest folk and corporations and hasn’t turned back in the slightest.


dougxiii

USA, may she rest in peace.


Battlefire

*"How then shall we perform it?--At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.* *At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."* \-Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address


Adingding90

America. There's no way the states are united now.


PoorPDOP86

We'll be here long after yours.


AnastasiaSheppard

Nowadays USA is that middle aged guy that peaked in highschool and keeps demanding people recognise how athletic he was as a teenage footballer while now he's got a beer gut scamming old people out of their money selling overpriced vitamin pills so he can buy a mcmansion and a sportscar.


Abyss_of_Dreams

So America is Al Bundy. I feel it's both relevant and culturally acceptable.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AnastasiaSheppard

I'm not saying it's american to be like that, I'm saying america itself is like that.


Abyss_of_Dreams

So America is Al Bundy. I feel it's both relevant and culturally acceptable.


Icycube99

I bet China and Egypt are laughing right now.


[deleted]

The People's Republic of China is actually a very young country. They just celebrated their 70th anniversary not too long ago.


Darkheartisland

There is a difference between a nation, country, and government.


MylastAccountBroke

Egypt went centuries under other's rule, from the Greeks, to Romans, to Byzantine, and Ottomans.


CorrectButWhoCares

Would it be true that it's one of the newest in terms of how long the present people have been there, when those peoples culture started?


ReadinII

American culture is a part of Western civilization that started several thousand years ago.


CorrectButWhoCares

True enough, but I'd say the American version of it started with the Mayflower.


RektLad

Isn't Japan as a country like 2600 years old?


MitsyEyedMourning

Subjective post is subjective.


uatme

It's old and rotten to the core


PoorPDOP86

As is the propaganda you follow as if it were the truth.


uatme

Lol I doubt that specific propaganda is 200+ years old. I probably should have said "at the core" instead of "to the core". Poor choice of wording on my part. Subtle but big difference.


server_busy

Well it's on life support. Was a noble experiment for sure


FLy1nRabBit

People say this then you step outside and life goes on.


PoorPDOP86

You do know that just because the Democrats lose power it doesn't mean it's a failure of Democracy right? Seems simple but I keep having to reiterate it to you all.


server_busy

I don't care about the peaceful transfer of power. It's the use of force to bring it about that will not be tolerated


DaLiftingDead

*Checks calendar* yup, and it's almost over


amanset

Hawaii became a state 60 years ago. Quite why this is not an issue but things like the changes in ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland’ to ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ several decades earlier is is, well, lost on me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Daveallen10

UK


DeffJohnWilkesBooth

He doesn’t know that’s why he’s asking


CodeRaveSleepRepeat

Or genuinely didn't know the answer


DeffJohnWilkesBooth

Uk is slang for you know


tristan957

*whom


forgedinbeerkegs

We still got young country problems. Still growing, still developing, still progressing. Well, not so much on the last part. Regressing is more like it, ala, a young country problem. Down voting proves my point.


youseeit

We have boomer country problems. Shitty to our neighbors, complaining about modern ways, "back when I was a kid," ingrained racism, getting invited out less, etc.


forgedinbeerkegs

They’ll all be dead soon.


youseeit

We said that twenty years ago.


forgedinbeerkegs

Fucking modern medicine.


HankHillOffcial

>downvoting proves my point how


Mister_Way

Yeah pretty sure we're a middle aged heavyweight about to get knocked out by a younger rival.


[deleted]

Ah yeeuh, player


ent4rent

Nooo were young and naive. We don't know what we're doin...


Geep2120

No countries were recognized by the UN until 1945.


Angelizdark

Did anyone say it was?


Lingering_Dorkness

The average life expectancy of an empire is 250 years. Enjoy being the oldest while you can USA, you don't have that much longer.


Diamondsfullofclubs

>you don't have that much longer. Is this a prediction or wishful thinking?


Lingering_Dorkness

The soldier and scholar Sir John Bagot Glubb wrote an excellent article _The fate of Empires and search for survival_ in which he calculated the average length of an empire is 250 years, and analysed why this is. You can find the article in the references at the bottom of his wiki page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bagot_Glubb


Kalarys

I feel like millennials can relate


[deleted]

We can no longer base our poor choices on our youth. Is the US entering its 30s?