this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
1373 points (98.4% liked)

Facepalm

3114 readers
1295 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
[–] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 77 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Even ignoring how obviously wrong this is about how old other countries are, America turns 250 in 2026 not 2025 lol

[–] potoo22@programming.dev 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] srlnclt@startrek.website 12 points 1 day ago

Bicentennial Quarters anyone? 1776-1976.

Be right back, those kids are on my lawn again.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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.

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah, but does San Marino have a population of more than seven?

[–] Tja@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] oyo@lemm.ee 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It's the weirdest to get pushback on little joke comments, but of course it's relevant. The US Constitution needs some serious updates but there is no denying it is the oldest for a country with significant population and diversity. San Marino is the fifth smallest country in the world, has a population ~10,000 times less than the US, and is almost entirely monocultural.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 17 hours ago

The point is that under no measure is it true. If you go for nation as people's identity, Japan, Egypt or China are millenia old. If by the current form of constitution then us constitution was amended in 1992 (IIRC). If we go by geographical borders, Hawaii and Alaska are 1960s additions. If we go by form of government, the UK is about a hundred years older. If we go by the base form of the constitution, ammendments be damned, either UK or San Marino are older.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

More importantly, is your IQ more than seven?

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 0 points 18 hours ago

Don't put your finger near your mouth, you may bite it.

[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jmsy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Does a constitution define what a nation is?

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

In the case of the US, yes.

Even then, not really.

We celebrate July 4, 1776, the creation of our national identity independent from England, not June 21, 1788, when our constitution took effect.

[–] Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

But July 4th is called "Independence Day", because it's the day we got our independence from England. The articles of confederation weren't signed until November 15, 1777, July 4th, 1776 was just the declaration of Independence

The US didn't get widely accepted as a country until a good few years later (within 5-10 years though depending on who you ask)

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago

Yes, that's already what I'm saying. The United States celebrates its Independence Day, not any day that has anything to do with the creation of the Constitution that forms our basis of government.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] GenerationII@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago

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?

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 points 1 day ago

The UK dates back to 1801, when the parliaments of Scotland and Ireland were abolished and the UK Parliament established.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

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.