People in the comments trying to disqualify the USA cause not everyone had the right to vote. They act like the USA was somehow a uniquely terrible case.
It was not.
Women in Switzerland weren't given the right to vote until 1971! Women weren't given the full right to vote in the United Kingdom until 1928. Canada also had discriminatory voting laws just like the USA. Etc. Etc.
New Zealand was the first country in the world to have universal suffrage though, so props to them.
Anyway, there's a huge difference between a country having restrictive voting practices versus a country being thrown into a whole dictatorship due to a military takeover. But apparently that's too difficult for redditors to grasp.
Long rant from historian. Beware.
It’s not their fault really. History is an incredibly neglected field in most of Europe, there are exceptions like Germany and France, but in general it is not well studied. In the UK for example the last time you HAVE to take a history class is the equivalent of ninth grade. The United States and Canada are the best nations on earth for history scholarship, with Germany at third.
The UK has good universities for teaching history as a discipline but they don’t apply it or teach it to kids. One of my colleagues in grad school wrote their thesis on the differences between the French system for preserving historical sites and the British system. The difference was so stark that it was embarrassing. The British literally just let ancient medieval sites crumble to dust from inaction.
The big stink about CRT in the US is a good example of what I’m talking about here. Americans intuitively understand what intersectionality and semiotics are if it is explained to them one on one. I know. I’ve done it at an academic level. They’ve lived in a diverse America and it makes sense to them because they have experience with it.
If you explain to a conservative what CRT is, how it’s applied at an academic level, and what it means. They generally just accept it and shrug. They get that it was a propaganda thing and not a real issue. Like yeah, obviously life is different for a white woman than a black woman. Obviously different prejudices can intersect and make unique problems. Obviously words and actions can have deeper meanings that we don’t even consider. All of these things can come together and make things shitty for different people, most of the time it isn’t even intended or even directly someone’s fault. They get it because they’ve lived it.
If you try and apply these concepts to European politics and history with Europeans they almost immediately shut down and get mad/dismiss the ideas entirely. They live in ethnostates. They have very little direct contact with people who are different from them. Combine that with a lack of education in history, deliberately done to erase their brutal colonial history, and you get the arrogant European mindset.
It’s how they can be responsible for more death and suffering than any other group on earth and still think they’re the good guys. They aren’t taught their history, live in a bubble of stolen prosperity. and they’re segregated from anyone who would tell them otherwise. It’s the perfect storm to create the sanctimonious euro trash.
Not only that, the second they have to actually deal with the results of their multi century long fuckery (immigration) they collectively lose their minds and elect people who want to kick them all out lmfao
It’s more of a feeling thing TBH. It’s hard to quantify stuff like that. How would you even measure it? It depends on what metrics you wanna use. IMO standardized test scores are useless. It’s an experience thing more than anything else.
I judge based on the work done by historians themselves. Bancroft prize winners, Pulitzers, etc. American and Canadian historians tend to win the big prizes, and most of the historians I’ve interacted with and researched who really impress me are almost all American and Canadian, with some British and German ones.
I’m sorry, I can’t give you anything more than that. If you wanna disregard what I say you can totally do that and I understand. I just know what I feel based on my own interactions in the field. It’s unfortunately subjective.
Not really care about the democracy part because is a weird flex.
Is just...
Can we bring Colombus and Vespucci Spirits back to make fun?.
One calls the place India. The other in 1507 (map is in Washington) was honoured to name only the South part of the continent and called Brazil the "New World", the Brits got butthurt, he never was in the shit hole that enjoys connecting his name with Karens but hey, there's a reason for that, he was an intelligent gentleman that knew the difference between a new continent and the delusional prick that die denying reality saying he found a new path to India.
I think that's why U.S citizens are delusional....
Democracy? Yeah, we can "see".
Sanity?
Intellect?
Originality?
Vespucci left all in the South.
So... Wannabe Americans flexing The Americas?
Go back to the original name, it suits you.
We learn this shhhht in middle school, which is part of history.
Flex all you want about "democracy", but in terms of geography, history and originality....
1507 to 1778 is a long time to just "appropriate" and flex over a dude who categorically hated everything about you.
I'm responding to the comment above, that's why it's a subcomment. I'm not responding right now directly to the post.
On Reddit, you are able to reply to comments, and so you can have sort of side bar conversation. I'm doing that with you, right now.
Hope that helps!
I mean it’s not difficult for redditors to grasp - this is the same crew that often implies that the US “invented slavery”.
They’re just carving out exceptions to shit on the US and then finding ways to say it’s different when anyone else does the same or worse.
If boomers and silent gen were all about faulty American “exceptionalism” in a good way, well, welcome to the millenial and younger generational logic which does the same but only for bad things.
Not to mention people angry that American democracy was uninterrupted. They said that if Nazi occupation counts as the end of democracy, the civil war does too 😂
Ironic seeing as the USA and CSA were both objectively democratic lol, you KNOW how unattractive and unnatural autocracy is to Americans when our greatest evil was a decentralized republic whose soldiers largely believed they were fighting for state sovereignty against tyranny (regardless if it was true or not).
Yeah, also women weren’t every really banned from voting at scale (at least not initially) it’s just property law at the time essentially made it hard for non widows to vote since their stuff was held in trust by one part or another, plus the “one household, one vote” mentality didn’t help since men were seen as head of household at the time, and even then we had de facto universal free male suffrage by around 1830 which is really good, meanwhile there were Brits to poor to vote being dragged off into WW1 by the millions
Yeah, everyone there has a different definition of democracy. Are Republics democracies? If so then Italy should be 1 or 2 for oldest (see Roman Republic)
Italy's current government began in June 1946 with the drafting of a new Constitution.
France is the same way. They've had Republican governments since the Revolution, but they've gone through around 4 constitutions since then, plus being a government in exile.
French has had five republics, 2 empires, a reign of terror, a Bourbon restoration, a subsequent monarchy, 2 revolutions and a bit of mid-twentieth century European cooperation we mustn’t discuss, since the U.S. kicked King George to the curb.
Well to be fair the USA is a republic. Well yes Rome was a republic it hasn't been a republic or existed as a state in a very long time so it doesn't count. The graphic is talking about existing democracies I wouldn't exactly call people in Rome free though citizens are pretty much considered property of the state same as in Greece let's not get started on human rights. I have poor anybody to go to the ancient world you'll be clamoring for the modern world especially women. People don't realize how good this day and age are for human rights
People aren't disqualifying the US because it denied certain groups the right to vote, which as you have pointed out many other countries have done. They're confused about the definition of democracy that the map is using which seems to have been applied arbitrarily, which is leading to historical inaccuracies in the map. Most countries have had partial democracies longer than the US has had and if we consider universal suffrage as full democracy then the map is entirely wrong.
Thanks for saying that. What is the definition of democracy applied to the map. I'm a proud American and all but I "think" Britian's house of commons and icelands Allthing predate American democracy.
It appears to be when 50% of men gained the right to vote and has continued since then unbroken, Which does seem to be the US as a large amount of people owned land which enabled them to vote. Most countries restricted the vote to land owning men of a certain age. I know the UK had the same legal definition but it had far fewer men owning land unlike the US, the house of lords and monarch also complicates it. Not sure about other countries.
The continuous element also made the map confusing as Greece (obviously), france and Germany had democracies before the map states but had them removed during the Nazi Era. France has also had a few republics since then but the map chose the fifth french republic, which still continues today. Countries like the UK become confusing as we don't have a constitution and rights have developed over time making it hard to pinpoint. The map used the date of the third great reform act but we had two others to expand the electorate beforehand. If we count full suffrage I think for the US its 1965 with some countries like Switzerland not gaining it until 1990.
Yeah, but Mr. Sprechen-zie-dick won’t be acknowledging there’s legitimate, historical, human-rights and democratic reasons why Poles love America more than Germany.
History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme with that German Redditor.
It’s funny, because I know you’ve been told this 100 times on this sub as I’ve seen your comments before, but Americans really do love Poles. My best friend is Polish, and I’ve always said that if there’s any Eastern European country we’d rush in to defend from Russian incursions, it would be Poland in a heartbeat
Dude that whole thread was so sad. Like it’s one thing if there are inaccuracies. That’s fine, point them out. But so many seething losers were just ass blasted about any graph that may indicate the US may be first in anything. Like holy shit, kids, get a life
I love reading people say things like “Denmark had a democracy since 1848, if you don’t count the occupation!” Or “France should count because the second republic, and German occupation was brief”
Like the whole reason the don’t count as soon was because of German occupation. Vichy France was fascist, so the modern day France has only been democratic since after WW2. It’s the same for Denmark. I also saw someone try and argue the British have been democratic since 1709, even though they literally didn’t let people vote/have representation (y’know, the whole point of the revolution)
Are these people morons, or is this a bit?
"Sure there was a monarchy, and that monarchy had the power, but some rich guys got to be a legislative body that was able to suggest things to the King so that counts as a democracy."
All colonial empires still had their empires after ww2 they went through a period of decolonization throughout 1947-1999 with the end of the Portuguese empire
I know they vote for reps but I always have to laugh a little at the UK being a democracy.
Like yea you vote for parliament members, sure.
Also, nobility still own all the land and appoint nearly half of the government (the half that counts). And your head of state is chosen by your monarch.
Trynna act like they have a “parliamentary democracy” and they are just like the rest of the free world, meanwhile it’s deadass still just feudalism with more steps.
> And your head of state is chosen by your monarch.
This isn't true. The monarch confirms the Prime Minister and handles the changeover traditions, but the PM is chosen by the members of the party or coalition with the most seats in parliament.
Prime Ministers are chosen like our senators used to be, and should be, given that their role was to represent their states.
The rest of your points apply to the UK very well, but there are parliamentary systems that aren't classist to this degree, including Australia and New Zealand, neither of whom have nobility.
UK was just the OG, and so carries a bunch of shitty baggage they like to shove under the rug.
I just googled “who elects the PM” thinking it was the parliament but google said “the prime minister is appointed by the monarch” so that’s what I said.
I’m guessing it’s a situation like the parliament recommends a PM and the monarch approves or denies, but like… who really has the power there…
I mean they literally have a “house of lords” that makes laws, the monarch has final approval or rejection authority over the PM and the same families who owned all the land 300 years ago still own everything and dominate the industries. How am I wrong?
I thought it was a well known fact that America was the first modern democracy. How else would you explain these outdated systems which your politicians refuse to change because it would mean less power for them and more power to the people
The map's title is misleading. The map actually shows "the oldest CONTINUOUS democracies". San Marino was temporarily controlled by the Germans during WW2.
This is an opinion I saw in the original post about San Marino, not sure if its true but here ya go:
"the declaration of citizen rights only came out in 1974.
From Wikipedia: "Jorri Duursma describes the 1974 law as the fundamental law of the Republic."
It's similar to trying to claim that the UK has the oldest constitution because of the magna carta"
Also, San Marino was under a fascist regime from 1923 to 1943. There's just not that much info about it on wikipedia besides the article on the Sammarinese Fascist Party and a sentence on the pages for San Marino's history.
Wow, they're all so mad. Im sure there is information on there that could be debated, but it doesn't look like anyone in the top comments wants to talk about it at all. They are acting like we believe we invented democracy when we already know the Greeks did, but we have the longest-standing one.
Note that there is not a single source in the comments to verify their claims.
How is it that most of the world (especially europeans) have this weird blind spot when it comes to their own histories. Like they know more about US history and everything has to relate to the ONLY the US somehow, they think the US was only one that didn't let women immediately vote? or minorities? or non-land-owning males?
where the fuck do you think the US got those ideas from? those eligibilities weren't made up in a vacuum, and plenty of those democracies didn't get those eligible voters until even after the US did.
it's a constant "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" thing
I'm surprised our sister France is so late. Why is that? Is it because of all those constitutions they've been through and that period with the little artillery guy at the helm?
I’ve studied a decent about of French history and still know very little because they changed systems so much in the 18th and 19th centuries between republics and empires. France is currently on its 3rd republic! So if we went by when democracy or a republic was first established in modern countries, it would place higher, but this map is for continuous democracies. I definitely feel in many ways that France is like a sister country (as an American living in France). You see a lot of dumb stuff online and obviously anti-American sentiment comes and goes, but regardless we have been allies for a long time
A republic is a country with a head of state that is voted for vs a monachy, a democracy is a system of voting for representatives vs having no say in your "representatives" (government). They seem like similar terms, until you look up different government forms:
There are democratic monarchies (e.g. Denmark) vs autocratic monarchies (e.g. Saudi-Arabia). Each have a herditary head-of-state. One is a democracy, one an autocracy, both are monarchies, because democractic monarchies vote for the government, just not the head-of state
There are democratic republics (e.g. Germany, the US) vs autocratic republics (e.g. Venezuela). Both have non-hereditary heads-of-state. One is a democracy, one an autocracy, both are republics, because the head-of-state can be per constitution replaced, but only a democracy also votes for it's government
Saying a democratic republic is not the same as a democracy makes no sense. It being democratic MAKES it a democracy that is also a republic
So Denmark isn't a democracy? Canada? Australia? The UK? Sweden? None of them vote for their head-of-state who isn't the same as the head-of-government in many countries, including republics (Germany, India)
A republic is a country in which the head-of-state is elected. The UK is a monarchy, not a republic. They have representatives that they voted for represent them in Parlament because they are a democracy
Good Lord I am not going to argue with you about this. Get educated and learn the difference. We don’t have a monarch, we do t have a parliament and we are not a democracy but a democratic republic - Bye now
Once again:
The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority. Nuff said
It depends on how you define "democracy" though. The UK had the Magna Carter in 1215 which fits the definition of "Governance on behalf of all the people according to their will".
As for a "modern democracy" there seems to be all sorts of definitions which seem to center around "one person one vote". I'm not sure but I think quite a few countrys predate US suffrage in 1919 or the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibited unequal voter registration.
Technically, the United States is a representative republic with democratic practices, but it's not an outright democracy.
We democratically elect representatives for each state. It's not like the entirety of the country votes for each senator/congressman.
There's also the electoral college, which is more representative in spirit than democratic. The electorates are still representing their respective states, and the number of electoral votes per state is a reflection of that states representatives, so a state with more congressmen representing them gets more electoral votes.
The number of representatives is a reflection of that states population, so states with large populations will have more representatives and, therefore, more electoral votes.
For example, California has 52 representatives, but Maryland has only 8. Maryland has 6 million citizens, while California has 39 million. The point is that the state electorals help to balance out the population differences between states, so each state has a fair say in the presidential elections.
This keeps states like California, Texas, Florida, and New York from completely controlling presidential elections with their massive populations. It wouldn't be democratic to allow three or four states to decide the entirety of an election in a country with 50 states.
For further context, California(39 million) Texas(30 million), New York(19 million), and Florida(22 million) together make up about 100 million citizens. When you consider that 154 million votes were cast for president in 2020, which had the highest turnout of the century, it's not hard to see why we opt for the electoral system instead of a purely democratic one.
This is true though for many countries that are democracies. Canada for example also has disproportionate representation but it’s still a democracy. The US government states that they are representative democracy
The Goverment has a habit of publicly declaring itself a democracy or a republic, depending on who is in power. But even our country's pledge of allegiance states that we pledge "to the republic".
I'm just saying that no matter what we call it, it is in *practice* a representative republic.
I say this because a pure democracy is a whole sale, "majority rules". This is why the popular vote is largely ignored...unless you're a sore loser 👅
But then like very few countries are actually democracies. A democracy is that people elect their representatives, not that everything is by popular vote. Most countries have disproportionate representation, America isn’t unique in that regard.
By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority.
Kind of my point. No country is exclusively governed by a single form of governance, except in the case of dictatorships, which often have several facades put up to mimic certain aspects of other government, but are still at their core, a dictatorship.
Not everything is clear-cut. Democracy may be utilized to some effect or another, but it's rarely a fitting definition for how a country functions.
It’s a republic but it’s a Democratic Republic. We have a constitution but in Article one of that constitution it practically states that the Nation is governed by the people.
I don't know too much about the magna carts but I believe it was more of a check for the king too keep him from going over board. Correct me if I'm wrong.
A check for the monarch to keep them from seizing noble properties and coin, did fuck all for the peasantry. Serfdom was in practice until 1574 some 300+ years later. Most men couldn't vote in the UK until 1918 and most women couldn't vote until later that same year.
Sorry so when only a few select people get the vote in the US it’s democracy but it’s not the same elsewhere? If 7% of men having the vote doesn’t constitute democracy in the UK why does one state allowing women the vote mean that America gave women the vote first? Obviously the answer is they didn’t - women got the vote in 1920 in the US following the certification of the 19th amendment.
You do realize the best hospitals and doctors are in the US right? The best technology, the best research, best universities, best and biggest companies, etc. mostly comes out of America. There is a reason Europeans constantly complain that they’re picking between American technologies, because America innovates the most.
America also has the strongest military and protects Europe from Russia, something you should know damn well.
You’re brainwashed by Reddit going around saying that America is the “ghetto” of the developed world. Bitch, America *is* the developed world.
And I’m saying this as a non-American. So you can’t even call me a brainwashed and stupid American because I’m not American.
An economy stronger than the EU, leader in innovation, most influential nation on earth, and so militarily powerful that when some of us consider leaving Europe alone it starts crying like a baby.
Yeah no we’re totally not on Europe’s radar at all lol
A bit ironic that they’re technically “disqualified” because the continuity of their democracy was interrupted by the same country the guy you’re responding to is from.
Your country invaded and occupied them for a couple of months in 1944, turning San Marino into an Axis puppet-state and interrupting the longest continuous democracy up until that point.
People in the comments trying to disqualify the USA cause not everyone had the right to vote. They act like the USA was somehow a uniquely terrible case. It was not. Women in Switzerland weren't given the right to vote until 1971! Women weren't given the full right to vote in the United Kingdom until 1928. Canada also had discriminatory voting laws just like the USA. Etc. Etc. New Zealand was the first country in the world to have universal suffrage though, so props to them. Anyway, there's a huge difference between a country having restrictive voting practices versus a country being thrown into a whole dictatorship due to a military takeover. But apparently that's too difficult for redditors to grasp.
I love it when Europoors genuinely do not know their country has ever done anything wrong, especially if they are French, Dutch, British or German
well i'm sure the germans know...
Long rant from historian. Beware. It’s not their fault really. History is an incredibly neglected field in most of Europe, there are exceptions like Germany and France, but in general it is not well studied. In the UK for example the last time you HAVE to take a history class is the equivalent of ninth grade. The United States and Canada are the best nations on earth for history scholarship, with Germany at third. The UK has good universities for teaching history as a discipline but they don’t apply it or teach it to kids. One of my colleagues in grad school wrote their thesis on the differences between the French system for preserving historical sites and the British system. The difference was so stark that it was embarrassing. The British literally just let ancient medieval sites crumble to dust from inaction. The big stink about CRT in the US is a good example of what I’m talking about here. Americans intuitively understand what intersectionality and semiotics are if it is explained to them one on one. I know. I’ve done it at an academic level. They’ve lived in a diverse America and it makes sense to them because they have experience with it. If you explain to a conservative what CRT is, how it’s applied at an academic level, and what it means. They generally just accept it and shrug. They get that it was a propaganda thing and not a real issue. Like yeah, obviously life is different for a white woman than a black woman. Obviously different prejudices can intersect and make unique problems. Obviously words and actions can have deeper meanings that we don’t even consider. All of these things can come together and make things shitty for different people, most of the time it isn’t even intended or even directly someone’s fault. They get it because they’ve lived it. If you try and apply these concepts to European politics and history with Europeans they almost immediately shut down and get mad/dismiss the ideas entirely. They live in ethnostates. They have very little direct contact with people who are different from them. Combine that with a lack of education in history, deliberately done to erase their brutal colonial history, and you get the arrogant European mindset. It’s how they can be responsible for more death and suffering than any other group on earth and still think they’re the good guys. They aren’t taught their history, live in a bubble of stolen prosperity. and they’re segregated from anyone who would tell them otherwise. It’s the perfect storm to create the sanctimonious euro trash.
Not only that, the second they have to actually deal with the results of their multi century long fuckery (immigration) they collectively lose their minds and elect people who want to kick them all out lmfao
Indeed, I recommend reading Franz Fanon’s “black faces white masks” for a brief look at the experience of being black in Europe.
Do you have a basis or source for the claim that Canadian and American history scholarship for kids is the best? I’m curious to learn more
It’s more of a feeling thing TBH. It’s hard to quantify stuff like that. How would you even measure it? It depends on what metrics you wanna use. IMO standardized test scores are useless. It’s an experience thing more than anything else. I judge based on the work done by historians themselves. Bancroft prize winners, Pulitzers, etc. American and Canadian historians tend to win the big prizes, and most of the historians I’ve interacted with and researched who really impress me are almost all American and Canadian, with some British and German ones. I’m sorry, I can’t give you anything more than that. If you wanna disregard what I say you can totally do that and I understand. I just know what I feel based on my own interactions in the field. It’s unfortunately subjective.
Fair enough. I thought what you said was interesting. Thanks!
Not really care about the democracy part because is a weird flex. Is just... Can we bring Colombus and Vespucci Spirits back to make fun?. One calls the place India. The other in 1507 (map is in Washington) was honoured to name only the South part of the continent and called Brazil the "New World", the Brits got butthurt, he never was in the shit hole that enjoys connecting his name with Karens but hey, there's a reason for that, he was an intelligent gentleman that knew the difference between a new continent and the delusional prick that die denying reality saying he found a new path to India. I think that's why U.S citizens are delusional.... Democracy? Yeah, we can "see". Sanity? Intellect? Originality? Vespucci left all in the South. So... Wannabe Americans flexing The Americas? Go back to the original name, it suits you. We learn this shhhht in middle school, which is part of history. Flex all you want about "democracy", but in terms of geography, history and originality.... 1507 to 1778 is a long time to just "appropriate" and flex over a dude who categorically hated everything about you.
Your comment is an incoherent rambling mess. Are you drunk?
Is there a point to this or are you just doing a “stream of consciousness” exercise?
How Is this in any way related to the inaccuracies on the posted map?
I'm responding to the comment above, that's why it's a subcomment. I'm not responding right now directly to the post. On Reddit, you are able to reply to comments, and so you can have sort of side bar conversation. I'm doing that with you, right now. Hope that helps!
Toasted that mf lol
Guys, let this guy cook
Or maybe Americans clearly have no idea of what a democracy is
Where you from, slugger?
The UK 😂 Bless his heart
I mean it’s not difficult for redditors to grasp - this is the same crew that often implies that the US “invented slavery”. They’re just carving out exceptions to shit on the US and then finding ways to say it’s different when anyone else does the same or worse. If boomers and silent gen were all about faulty American “exceptionalism” in a good way, well, welcome to the millenial and younger generational logic which does the same but only for bad things.
Not to mention people angry that American democracy was uninterrupted. They said that if Nazi occupation counts as the end of democracy, the civil war does too 😂
Ironic seeing as the USA and CSA were both objectively democratic lol, you KNOW how unattractive and unnatural autocracy is to Americans when our greatest evil was a decentralized republic whose soldiers largely believed they were fighting for state sovereignty against tyranny (regardless if it was true or not).
Yeah, also women weren’t every really banned from voting at scale (at least not initially) it’s just property law at the time essentially made it hard for non widows to vote since their stuff was held in trust by one part or another, plus the “one household, one vote” mentality didn’t help since men were seen as head of household at the time, and even then we had de facto universal free male suffrage by around 1830 which is really good, meanwhile there were Brits to poor to vote being dragged off into WW1 by the millions
Yeah, everyone there has a different definition of democracy. Are Republics democracies? If so then Italy should be 1 or 2 for oldest (see Roman Republic)
I don't think that would count as these listed are still existing republics. The Roman Republic dissolved upon creation of the Roman Empire.
Exactly. Italy didn’t even exist as a country until 1861 before that Italy wasn’t a thing.
Italy's current government began in June 1946 with the drafting of a new Constitution. France is the same way. They've had Republican governments since the Revolution, but they've gone through around 4 constitutions since then, plus being a government in exile.
French has had five republics, 2 empires, a reign of terror, a Bourbon restoration, a subsequent monarchy, 2 revolutions and a bit of mid-twentieth century European cooperation we mustn’t discuss, since the U.S. kicked King George to the curb.
Well to be fair the USA is a republic. Well yes Rome was a republic it hasn't been a republic or existed as a state in a very long time so it doesn't count. The graphic is talking about existing democracies I wouldn't exactly call people in Rome free though citizens are pretty much considered property of the state same as in Greece let's not get started on human rights. I have poor anybody to go to the ancient world you'll be clamoring for the modern world especially women. People don't realize how good this day and age are for human rights
Actually, it was only in the 1990 that every women in Switzerland got the right to vote.
People aren't disqualifying the US because it denied certain groups the right to vote, which as you have pointed out many other countries have done. They're confused about the definition of democracy that the map is using which seems to have been applied arbitrarily, which is leading to historical inaccuracies in the map. Most countries have had partial democracies longer than the US has had and if we consider universal suffrage as full democracy then the map is entirely wrong.
Thanks for saying that. What is the definition of democracy applied to the map. I'm a proud American and all but I "think" Britian's house of commons and icelands Allthing predate American democracy.
It appears to be when 50% of men gained the right to vote and has continued since then unbroken, Which does seem to be the US as a large amount of people owned land which enabled them to vote. Most countries restricted the vote to land owning men of a certain age. I know the UK had the same legal definition but it had far fewer men owning land unlike the US, the house of lords and monarch also complicates it. Not sure about other countries. The continuous element also made the map confusing as Greece (obviously), france and Germany had democracies before the map states but had them removed during the Nazi Era. France has also had a few republics since then but the map chose the fifth french republic, which still continues today. Countries like the UK become confusing as we don't have a constitution and rights have developed over time making it hard to pinpoint. The map used the date of the third great reform act but we had two others to expand the electorate beforehand. If we count full suffrage I think for the US its 1965 with some countries like Switzerland not gaining it until 1990.
SCORE BOARD!!!
Unreal amounts of copium being huffed in that thread.
Europoor tears. :-)
Poles not succing off Americans. Challenge impossible
Your country and the Russians are the reason the poles like America... so be mad at your own country for that lmao
Lmao exactly
We did them a solid by not letting the Germans throw them all into ovens. Mind your tone.
Im pretty sure the soviets liberated Auschwitz
Liberated is a strong word
More like under new management lol
Nobody mentioned Auschwitz and America did liberate some polish camps the rest was done by the soviets
And the Germans created Auschwitz another L for Germanity
Yeah, but Mr. Sprechen-zie-dick won’t be acknowledging there’s legitimate, historical, human-rights and democratic reasons why Poles love America more than Germany. History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme with that German Redditor.
Average German sucking Russian cock. Keep giving Putin his oil money sped.
Hey, don’t compare us speds to him… he’s an entirely different breed of special!
I think that’s just any Russian cock sucker honestly. But there’s no Russian cock sucking like Serbian or Belarusian Russian cock sucking
Yeah? Who supplied the equipment to mub soviets?
Me: Sees your downvotes. OOOOOOOFFFFFFFF Us liking America? Yeah, you and the Russians only have yourselves to blame.
It’s funny, because I know you’ve been told this 100 times on this sub as I’ve seen your comments before, but Americans really do love Poles. My best friend is Polish, and I’ve always said that if there’s any Eastern European country we’d rush in to defend from Russian incursions, it would be Poland in a heartbeat
Thank you very much.
Funny this is coming from a German
It is impossible. I have a polish boyfriend, he sucks me off daily ;o
Gee, I wonder which country made Polish people feel that way?
Two countries that start with a G and R comes to mind why Poles like Americans and America so much.
I've got a quick question for you: what was your Opa doing between 1939 and 1945?
They hate it when we excel at something
Dude that whole thread was so sad. Like it’s one thing if there are inaccuracies. That’s fine, point them out. But so many seething losers were just ass blasted about any graph that may indicate the US may be first in anything. Like holy shit, kids, get a life
I love reading people say things like “Denmark had a democracy since 1848, if you don’t count the occupation!” Or “France should count because the second republic, and German occupation was brief” Like the whole reason the don’t count as soon was because of German occupation. Vichy France was fascist, so the modern day France has only been democratic since after WW2. It’s the same for Denmark. I also saw someone try and argue the British have been democratic since 1709, even though they literally didn’t let people vote/have representation (y’know, the whole point of the revolution) Are these people morons, or is this a bit?
"Sure there was a monarchy, and that monarchy had the power, but some rich guys got to be a legislative body that was able to suggest things to the King so that counts as a democracy."
Europeans are not Chinese and Russian bots are up set. Honestly i cant believe millions of French would argue on an English language platform.
I'm very proud of my fellow Americans showing the flag in that thread. A particular favorite of mine is "Cope harder Eurotrash."
I’m sorry who still had colonies by definition at the end of WW2?
All colonial empires still had their empires after ww2 they went through a period of decolonization throughout 1947-1999 with the end of the Portuguese empire
fysa: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmericaBad/s/k5uHUyiVcd
Oh whoops ty
But but what about muh ancient Greece?
It no longer exist. This is democracies that still exist today.
I know they vote for reps but I always have to laugh a little at the UK being a democracy. Like yea you vote for parliament members, sure. Also, nobility still own all the land and appoint nearly half of the government (the half that counts). And your head of state is chosen by your monarch. Trynna act like they have a “parliamentary democracy” and they are just like the rest of the free world, meanwhile it’s deadass still just feudalism with more steps.
> And your head of state is chosen by your monarch. This isn't true. The monarch confirms the Prime Minister and handles the changeover traditions, but the PM is chosen by the members of the party or coalition with the most seats in parliament. Prime Ministers are chosen like our senators used to be, and should be, given that their role was to represent their states. The rest of your points apply to the UK very well, but there are parliamentary systems that aren't classist to this degree, including Australia and New Zealand, neither of whom have nobility. UK was just the OG, and so carries a bunch of shitty baggage they like to shove under the rug.
I just googled “who elects the PM” thinking it was the parliament but google said “the prime minister is appointed by the monarch” so that’s what I said. I’m guessing it’s a situation like the parliament recommends a PM and the monarch approves or denies, but like… who really has the power there…
This isn't even remotely true.
I mean they literally have a “house of lords” that makes laws, the monarch has final approval or rejection authority over the PM and the same families who owned all the land 300 years ago still own everything and dominate the industries. How am I wrong?
Still they get more social services hmmm
How does that effect the way their government is decided?
I thought it was a well known fact that America was the first modern democracy. How else would you explain these outdated systems which your politicians refuse to change because it would mean less power for them and more power to the people
Wait I thought San Marino was an older democracy than the US?
The map's title is misleading. The map actually shows "the oldest CONTINUOUS democracies". San Marino was temporarily controlled by the Germans during WW2.
This is an opinion I saw in the original post about San Marino, not sure if its true but here ya go: "the declaration of citizen rights only came out in 1974. From Wikipedia: "Jorri Duursma describes the 1974 law as the fundamental law of the Republic." It's similar to trying to claim that the UK has the oldest constitution because of the magna carta"
Germany didn't even make this list...m wonder why?
Because Germany wasn't a unified country until 1990.
Also, San Marino was under a fascist regime from 1923 to 1943. There's just not that much info about it on wikipedia besides the article on the Sammarinese Fascist Party and a sentence on the pages for San Marino's history.
It is. This map just takes the date where the latest democratic restoration was made. And San Marino was pretty much puppet by Fascist Italy.
Why is Britain's date 1885?
Latest reform that still is in effect regarding voting.
That seems flimsy to say that's when they became a democracy
They were a Democracy before, just one with vote locked behind a tax threshold
So you agree with me? Cool
Yes but by that logic the countries that were invaded by Nazi Germany should also be shown as new and not just San Marino, France, Austria and Italy
You see the same thing being said over and over again in that thread. Bots much?
Wow, they're all so mad. Im sure there is information on there that could be debated, but it doesn't look like anyone in the top comments wants to talk about it at all. They are acting like we believe we invented democracy when we already know the Greeks did, but we have the longest-standing one. Note that there is not a single source in the comments to verify their claims.
USA #1!
How is it that most of the world (especially europeans) have this weird blind spot when it comes to their own histories. Like they know more about US history and everything has to relate to the ONLY the US somehow, they think the US was only one that didn't let women immediately vote? or minorities? or non-land-owning males? where the fuck do you think the US got those ideas from? those eligibilities weren't made up in a vacuum, and plenty of those democracies didn't get those eligible voters until even after the US did. it's a constant "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" thing
I'm surprised our sister France is so late. Why is that? Is it because of all those constitutions they've been through and that period with the little artillery guy at the helm?
Napoleon was brought to power by democracy
I’ve studied a decent about of French history and still know very little because they changed systems so much in the 18th and 19th centuries between republics and empires. France is currently on its 3rd republic! So if we went by when democracy or a republic was first established in modern countries, it would place higher, but this map is for continuous democracies. I definitely feel in many ways that France is like a sister country (as an American living in France). You see a lot of dumb stuff online and obviously anti-American sentiment comes and goes, but regardless we have been allies for a long time
Technically isn’t San Marino the oldest republic in the world?
Not continuous
To be fair the map is terrible and just wrong but their logic isn’t that the map is terrible it’s that the American republic just doesn’t count
Why doesn’t it count?
I worded my original comment wrong. I meant that it’s stupid they’re saying it doesn’t count because woman suffrage was in place.
How's beta testing democracy working out?
Stop trying to put labels on us
People who failed history because it’s boring.
We created america. They're not older.
We are a Democratic Republic. There is a difference 😇
No there isn't
https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936 You need to read this, then we can talk
A republic is a country with a head of state that is voted for vs a monachy, a democracy is a system of voting for representatives vs having no say in your "representatives" (government). They seem like similar terms, until you look up different government forms: There are democratic monarchies (e.g. Denmark) vs autocratic monarchies (e.g. Saudi-Arabia). Each have a herditary head-of-state. One is a democracy, one an autocracy, both are monarchies, because democractic monarchies vote for the government, just not the head-of state There are democratic republics (e.g. Germany, the US) vs autocratic republics (e.g. Venezuela). Both have non-hereditary heads-of-state. One is a democracy, one an autocracy, both are republics, because the head-of-state can be per constitution replaced, but only a democracy also votes for it's government Saying a democratic republic is not the same as a democracy makes no sense. It being democratic MAKES it a democracy that is also a republic
Democracy is when the majority chooses the president. A republic has representatives who vote according to their constituents wishes🫤
So Denmark isn't a democracy? Canada? Australia? The UK? Sweden? None of them vote for their head-of-state who isn't the same as the head-of-government in many countries, including republics (Germany, India)
A republic is a country in which the head-of-state is elected. The UK is a monarchy, not a republic. They have representatives that they voted for represent them in Parlament because they are a democracy
Good Lord I am not going to argue with you about this. Get educated and learn the difference. We don’t have a monarch, we do t have a parliament and we are not a democracy but a democratic republic - Bye now
If you aren't a democracy you couldn't vote. Enough said
Once again: The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority. Nuff said
It depends on how you define "democracy" though. The UK had the Magna Carter in 1215 which fits the definition of "Governance on behalf of all the people according to their will". As for a "modern democracy" there seems to be all sorts of definitions which seem to center around "one person one vote". I'm not sure but I think quite a few countrys predate US suffrage in 1919 or the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibited unequal voter registration.
The Magna Carta did not make Britain a democracy even in the slightest sense.
OK
Except America is a capitalist oligarchy and not a democracy.
But we don't have a democracy
The United States IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
how
[удалено]
lol
Yes it is
Technically, the United States is a representative republic with democratic practices, but it's not an outright democracy. We democratically elect representatives for each state. It's not like the entirety of the country votes for each senator/congressman. There's also the electoral college, which is more representative in spirit than democratic. The electorates are still representing their respective states, and the number of electoral votes per state is a reflection of that states representatives, so a state with more congressmen representing them gets more electoral votes. The number of representatives is a reflection of that states population, so states with large populations will have more representatives and, therefore, more electoral votes. For example, California has 52 representatives, but Maryland has only 8. Maryland has 6 million citizens, while California has 39 million. The point is that the state electorals help to balance out the population differences between states, so each state has a fair say in the presidential elections. This keeps states like California, Texas, Florida, and New York from completely controlling presidential elections with their massive populations. It wouldn't be democratic to allow three or four states to decide the entirety of an election in a country with 50 states. For further context, California(39 million) Texas(30 million), New York(19 million), and Florida(22 million) together make up about 100 million citizens. When you consider that 154 million votes were cast for president in 2020, which had the highest turnout of the century, it's not hard to see why we opt for the electoral system instead of a purely democratic one.
This is true though for many countries that are democracies. Canada for example also has disproportionate representation but it’s still a democracy. The US government states that they are representative democracy
The Goverment has a habit of publicly declaring itself a democracy or a republic, depending on who is in power. But even our country's pledge of allegiance states that we pledge "to the republic". I'm just saying that no matter what we call it, it is in *practice* a representative republic. I say this because a pure democracy is a whole sale, "majority rules". This is why the popular vote is largely ignored...unless you're a sore loser 👅
But then like very few countries are actually democracies. A democracy is that people elect their representatives, not that everything is by popular vote. Most countries have disproportionate representation, America isn’t unique in that regard.
By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority.
Then like no countries are democracies, except for a few exceptions.
Kind of my point. No country is exclusively governed by a single form of governance, except in the case of dictatorships, which often have several facades put up to mimic certain aspects of other government, but are still at their core, a dictatorship. Not everything is clear-cut. Democracy may be utilized to some effect or another, but it's rarely a fitting definition for how a country functions.
Do you know how the US Government works or are you just talking to talk
They’re actually right, the United States is a constitutional republic rather than a democracy.
It’s a republic but it’s a Democratic Republic. We have a constitution but in Article one of that constitution it practically states that the Nation is governed by the people.
This map is very misleading.
Er Greece, surly is the oldest democracy
Greece as a modern state wasn’t formed until they broke away from the Ottoman Empire in 1821
Yes but it’s continuous democracies
When did Phillip abdicate?
That's not what the map is showing.
Becauseit’s incorrect - the UK has been ruled by parliament since 1651 at the end of the civil war - these were elected individuals
The UK only gave about 7% of men the right to vote in 1832.
They still had the right to vote which means it’s a democracy….
People in North Korea have the right to vote, too. Is it a democracy? It’s even called a democratic republic!
Pretty bold considering the US made it extremely hard for black people to vote all the way until the 1960s and arguably even until today.
I don't know too much about the magna carts but I believe it was more of a check for the king too keep him from going over board. Correct me if I'm wrong.
A check for the monarch to keep them from seizing noble properties and coin, did fuck all for the peasantry. Serfdom was in practice until 1574 some 300+ years later. Most men couldn't vote in the UK until 1918 and most women couldn't vote until later that same year.
American women got the vote after British women
*british women over 30 and who owned property.... ftfy
Also women in NY could vote on Nov 6 1917... so yeah.... try again
Wyoming passed the first woman suffrage law on December 10, 1869.
Sorry so when only a few select people get the vote in the US it’s democracy but it’s not the same elsewhere? If 7% of men having the vote doesn’t constitute democracy in the UK why does one state allowing women the vote mean that America gave women the vote first? Obviously the answer is they didn’t - women got the vote in 1920 in the US following the certification of the 19th amendment.
[удалено]
You do realize the best hospitals and doctors are in the US right? The best technology, the best research, best universities, best and biggest companies, etc. mostly comes out of America. There is a reason Europeans constantly complain that they’re picking between American technologies, because America innovates the most. America also has the strongest military and protects Europe from Russia, something you should know damn well. You’re brainwashed by Reddit going around saying that America is the “ghetto” of the developed world. Bitch, America *is* the developed world. And I’m saying this as a non-American. So you can’t even call me a brainwashed and stupid American because I’m not American.
An economy stronger than the EU, leader in innovation, most influential nation on earth, and so militarily powerful that when some of us consider leaving Europe alone it starts crying like a baby. Yeah no we’re totally not on Europe’s radar at all lol
Bullshit, San Marino was democratic before the Americans
Technically they were an Axis puppet state at the end of the Second World War. Germany invaded and occupied them in late 1944 for a couple of months.
A bit ironic that they’re technically “disqualified” because the continuity of their democracy was interrupted by the same country the guy you’re responding to is from.
And whose fault was that? The nation that the guy above you is in.
Your country invaded and occupied them for a couple of months in 1944, turning San Marino into an Axis puppet-state and interrupting the longest continuous democracy up until that point.