Transcript
A threads post saying āThere has never been another nation ever that has existed much beyond 250 years. Not a single one. Americaās 250th year is 2025. The next 4 years are gonna be pretty interesting considering everything thatās already been said.ā It has a reply saying āMy local pub is older than your countryā.
If I assume by the word āPubā that they are in the UK, their country has only existed for 103 years. Obviously, that doesnāt mean the end of the people, or the pubs, just the end of that system of government and/or territorial border.
Thereās 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 wouldnāt need a revolution.
Reading through these comments it isnāt just the American education system. Thereās 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 commentsā¦even the ones being made by non-Americans.
The UK of GB and NI is presumably what theyāre 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, Iām not an Americanā¦)
Depends on what you are counting as the start and end of a country like ours. In our current state/make up of countries, itās 103 years, when the Irish Free State left in 1922.
Iām pretty sure the Scandinavian countries are older than counting years with four digits.
Sweden has technically only existed since 1523 when we got our independance from Denmark. Norway has been under both Sweden and Denmark for numerous years until 1905 when the Swedish-Norwegian union ended. Denmark on the other hand has existed atleast since 863 as that is the first time it is mentioned. So it depends on how you count.
if there werenāt people dumb enough to genuinely believe that the earth is flat, then i would assume it was a troll post.
but here we areā¦
It is wild to me how Americans forget that they built their ānationā upon the genocide of earlier (first) nations, which were there for thousands of years.
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 āput to the swordā. 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.
Americans were straight up humane in their genocide vs. historical examples. Hell, Iād say Israel is doing worse today, not even pretending to make treaties, move people about, nothing.
Sureā¦ 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. Thatās not to say the Israel-Hamas War isnāt a bad thing (all wars are) but just trying to snap you back from historical revisionism.
āStraight up humane?ā Dude in the 1800s there were times when people shot natives from passing trains for amusement. Itās not a contest about who did it more nicely.
Not as frequent as you claim. Many empires conquered foreign lands without genocide.
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 isnāt the same nation between the Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire, or after a dynasty change.
The interjection is pointless towards their argument because it doesnāt understand the ālogicā and is wrong in its own way.
His problem is that, as a truly stupid person, he isnāt 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 ādemocraticā example, and Japanās 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.
The UK was founded in 1707. The British crown family is even older than that.
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 itās 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.
nation is a construct based on race and culture. nation is artificial, think it like a club. if you have a citizenship means you are included to nation but it doesnt mean to you are a part of race or culture. for more reading like there is a science branch called sociology!
Social science. Nothing written there is accepted as facts.
Thereās plenty of areas in this world where multi cultural people live with eachother and view eachother of the same nationality.
USA is probably the best example of this, because it lacks an original culture.
But I gotta admit, itās difficult to convince lots of diaspora that they are Belgian even though they are fucking born here lol
you commented like you didnāt read half of my comment, again ānationā is construct if you keep using as term āraceā it will keep confusing too. humans understands on naming on classification if you always act relative or mix terms all around we cant have a conversation, i am not saying accept my ātermsā but we need to have a base or fundamental to speak or understand each other
What do you want to talk about? We donāt need terms. Get rid of the terms. What in society is bothering you.
Terms are unnecessary. Use synonyms, use whatever. Explain it fluently as if Iām a quite young person. Like I would explain accountancy to you while trying to avoid the situation of you telling me that Iām talking Chinese to you.
The only base we need, is that in social science, you cannot take authority. There are no facts. One group of people can act completely different than another group of people, even though everything is exactly the same beside the people themselves. Their personalities will alter quite a lot already.
So letās talk about what you want to talk about.
