this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
1426 points (98.4% liked)

Facepalm

3118 readers
516 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

TranscriptA 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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 1 day ago (6 children)

France, Switzerland, england, bavaria, brandenburg, vatican, spain, netherlands, denmark, sweden, portugal

I could go on and on

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Arguably, I believe America is the oldest constitutional nation.

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even british constitutionalism is older

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

well that ended pretty recently unfortunately

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That would be San Marino.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] Rinox@feddit.it 2 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your American education is showing.

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

most other countries still have their constitution though

[–] guy@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 day ago

Japan, tibet, mongolia, iran, ethiopia, mali, kongo, thailand

[–] Xatolos@reddthat.com 0 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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.

[–] Denjin 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

In the 1700s only landowners could vote.

White, male landowners - I'm just guessing here.

[–] Denjin 1 points 14 hours ago
[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Denjin 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's just semantics, not any practical distinction.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] aim_at_me@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 day ago

Pointless argument. Is there no difference between the US in 1776 and now? Every country is changing constantly. Because they're full of people.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

You are basing that on the Constitution, which has changed considerably over America's history.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

So you mean the usa never modernise? Checks out...

[–] Alaknar@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

You're talking about "a country", the guy in the OP talks about "a nation". Pretty vast difference between the two.

[–] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're entirely right but Bavaria became a part of Germany in 1871.

[–] Xatolos@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.