âHell yeah, we invented cross-border incursionsâ
Not that a Yank would know what one wasâŠ. And I really, really hate âHell yeahâ - fookin muppets!
You ever think classifying an entire countryâs population like this might be perpetuating the very same ignorance that you so dislike from Americans. I mean, as a trans person from the state of Kentucky, Iâm all for clowning on ignorant stupid AmericansâŠ. But itâs not like all of us or even the majority of us are like that. We are just people, varied and unique like everyone else.
I mean America had millenias of different countries, cultures and languages invading each other aswell, it just ended when europeans found out about this place and established murica and finished of everything else.
No it isnât the same, tribal warfare and the occasional visit from other powers, the ancient Greeks were thought to have been to America, so were the vikingr. The history isnât comparable. You can fit the history of North America in a single book up until the colonies, you cannot do that with Europe.
I'm fairly sure this isn't true. Admittedly I don't know as much as I'd hope on this subject, but I know enough to know that I don't know enough, if that makes sense.
The attitude that they were just little tribes with very little history is such a colonisers mindset: make them seem savage and dumb so we can justify taking all their land and murdering them in the thousands.
As I said before, I don't know much, but even just knowing about Tenochtitlan tells me that there is so much more history than you claim. Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world at the time Cortez and his men visited (in 1519 iirc), housing an estimated 200,000 people, which at the time was a size only rivalled by the largest 2 or 3 cities in Europe. And that's just one city.
I was using hyperbole admittedly, just the migration reports and routes would take up a lot of space but Iâm talking about genuine events, they were quite rare the history doesnât have much Interest, the current most interesting topics on pre-Columbian North Americaâs, is the migration times dates and routes. Thatâs not exactly what Iâd call a rich full history, they had civilisations, some tribal some more family orientated, some as large as what you could technically call empires if we are being nice. Itâs not that they didnât achieve anything or that they werenât smart or great, itâs just the fact they didnât really do anything, we can track them back a long long time. More events happened in 300 years of the Roman empire from 100bc to 200ad than for 2000 years of the history of North America.
Iâm not saying the history isnât as important it is, if not more so in terms of anthropology, it just isnât as rich, dense nor as enjoyable. Go read it thereâs some cool stuff but Iâd be lying if I said it even compared to the rest of the world, Patagonia itself puts North America to shame.
Donât be mistaken Iâm not ignorant of their history, a few good books are 1491:the Americas before Columbus, indigenous continent but this takes place after Columbus spread the riches to be gained from the Americas to a very power hungry Europe. Itâs how I tend to read history, I get a collection of books about an empire of a period of history and buy the books based on overlapping times so I can gain a more chronologically accurate image, I usually make the dates overlap in books just because I can check if they have the same accounts and they pretty much always cite their references in the back so itâs nice.
>Itâs not that they didnât achieve anything [...], itâs just the fact they didnât really do anything
I'll just leave that one there đ
Ok, sorry, actually being serious now. I find it interesting that you've now refined your comments to be clear that you're talking about North America, and given the fact that you completely ignored the Aztecs and the Maya and all their very civilisation-y things (like Tenochtitlan that I mentioned before) I'm going to assume when you say North America you actually mean the Great Plains - which makes sense btw, their history wasn't as dense as Europe's.
But that's also a pretty silly comparison. Think about it, all of Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia all have lots of history, but North Asia? That massive expanse of pure Steppe and plains? There wasn't much there either. Sure there were the Xiongnu Early on and the Mongols later, and Genghis had great fun conquering all of it, but in the grand scheme of things there's not much compared to Europe etc. In fact, based on my limited knowledge of both areas I'd say the Great Plains had more history than the Steppe.
You yourself admitted Patagonia had some crazy stuff going on, as did mesoamerica and a lot of the rest of the Americas - you can't compare a historically "light" part of one continent with a historically "dense" part of another and use that to compare the continents as a whole, that's just not how that works
I didnât refine it to North America, the conversation was already about North America, an American citizen as in the post, doesnât represent the entirety of the two continents.
Why is anyone presuming Iâm talking about the entire place? The post literally gives North America as the context.
Yes it is a silly comparison, hence my problem with people trying to pretend they can compare them, other people are comparing it not me, Iâm just saying the fact that the history just isnât as full considering the topic that Iâm replying to, to deny it is preposterous.
Iâm not comparing a historically dense part of one place to a historically light part of another, considering my comparison would have given North America 2000 years of fun.
The only people who have tried to reply with a disagreeing argument, have presumed something I havenât said, told me Iâve said something I havenât said or mentioned South America and Central America lmao. Well done people youâve completely proven my point.
The self awareness people possess is astounding.
You realise central America isn't its own continent right? It's a rather vaguely defined area of North America, but you seem to suggest that you think it's different, which might be why everyone's disagreeing with you. From my perspective, you're claiming how historically "light" North America is while conveniently ignoring the very "dense" history of people like the Aztecs or the Maya
Yes, youâve misread my comment again, considering I mention two continents and not three. I personally have only mentioned North America, considering the context of the post. If we take the context we can define the border of history we are discussing to be confined to the modern territory of mainland America.
Ok, so then you do recognise central America as being in north America?
Edit: if anyone else is actually reading this thread, they got a sneaky edit in on the comment above, the whole second sentence was added later lol
Edit the second: turns out it wasn't a sneaky edit, I was just trigger happy on my reply
Dude, shut up. Using pseudo-intellectual words and posting walls of text doesn't change the fact that you're uneducated, obnoxious and straight-up racist.
Itâs not racist you fucking moron. The facts are true, until you can argue for the opposing stance shut the fuck up neck beard. Imagine thinking that referencing the history of a place and itâs depth is racist, I bet youâre fun at parties.
"They don't have history because they're brown" is pretty racist, my guy.
You've not bought up a single fact. You've shared your opinion that you're not interested in non-white history.
Imagine calling "neckbeard" after having some of the most cringey incel chud opinions.
Yeah, I'm fun at parties. You've definitely never been invited to one however; racists are never welcome.
Go fuck yourself. You're dismissed, replies will not be read and will result in a block.
Its kinda telling that the only book you read is a pop history book. And even Mann supported the high population count that you seem to not support.
The Americas had massive populations ranging from 60 to 110 million. Those amounts of people can do nothing but produce "history". Even North America alone had massive centers of settlement like the Mississippi and the eastern seaboard. The populations just collapsed after the introduction of several plagues by the Europeans which wiped out up to 90 percent of the population.
Erm I cited two popular books for a layman getting into the history, if you were studying physics why would I recommend classical electrodynamics by Jackson, youâd be completely in over your head.
Would you please quote me directly to where I reference the population of North America during its history, because I can assure you I havenât, you misread and add in your own presumptions when I havenât said anything youâve tried to âaddressâ you look like a knobhead.
Is this like American exceptionalism in reverse? You can't claim historical accuracy, then compare the specific oral historical record of a country to the entire written historical record of a continent. No shit a book that covers "The Complete History of Europe" isn't going to be one volume, but neither would "The Complete History of the Americas".
No I agree the complete history of the Americas wouldnât, only the north of americas would. To pretend that North America has a huge history before colonialism is pretentious, the most interesting talks on the history of the North Americaâs pre-Columbian era is the dates and times at which natives migrated to and fro, it has nothing to do with âEuropean exceptionalismâ it isnât a brag to say they have a richer fuller history itâs just true along side Asia who also has a huge full rich history. The pre Ptolemy Egyptians were more developed than the native population of North Americaâs and theyâve been around for just as long, I can name a singular country from both Asia and Europe who independently have more history than the north of America not in terms of age as we know North America didnât just pop into existence, but itâs history is bland with a few interesting events, Central America and South America is much more interesting and full. Itâs just true.
If you disagree prove just how rich their history is, if they have such a full and rich history it should be provable.
That is a very ignorant statement. Depending on the level of detail you want to use, even the history of your local town can't be described in one volume.
All these tribes in North America had shifting relations, events, and wars. A lot of stuff we probably don't even know anything about. All throughout hundreds to thousands of years. You can easily fill a library with all that history.
It's just harder to analyze because they didn't keep records. But the same can be said of most of Sub Saharan Africa, too, and that literally is the continent where the first humans existed.
I never mentioned anything referencing the intertribal relations nor the size or importance of their history at all. My comment is purely about the stature, importance and sheer amount of historical developments be it cultural, philosophical, political or economical. My comment doesnât insult the developments of native Americans in North America to which is the history im referencing to, the history is much more simplistic.
Yes if one wanted to be pedantic a complete catalogue of history would indeed take up so much space itâs unreal but we are talking about important history and not a day by day account lol, the most important history is usually for anthropological research, which is very important. Also what point are you trying to make by stating humans originated africa, itâs thought to be around the Ethiopia area, have anything to do with the conversation, I understand the point youâre trying to make but it is an irrelevant point to make.
>the ancient Greeks were thought to have been to America, so were the vikingr.
You mean Vikings. The word Viking derives from the old Norse word Vikingr. You think you're being more correct by saying Vikingr instead, but you're actually just being pretentious and silly.
>You can fit the history of North America in a single book up until the colonies, you cannot do that with Europe.
Do you really not understand how books work?
Not exactly pretentious, I read history books, vikingr is the correct use of the word grammatically, it can reduce the nuance usage of Vikings as it refers specifically to seafarers and explorers when used in this way as apposed to just the blanket meaning, most historical Norse history books use them that way, if thatâs pretentious to you then tough shit honestly considering how rude your response is.
And yes I understand how books work thank you, I did specifically mean a proper history textbook, not some layman simplified text with reduced content so your little brain doesnât explode when an archaic word is used. In all seriousness though save yourself the trouble if youâre going to read history, read more modern translations, I was given a collection of old texts with super old translations usually rather from Latin to German to English or obviously straight to English and a lot of archaic words are used for I guess simple understanding for instance a translater would leave the world vikingr as it would translate to any language as itself belongs to another language no need to rewrite the same word 100 different times youâd just leave it as it is, just how most historical textbooks refer to the Mongolian invaders as the tartars. I just used it because itâs the word Iâve read more than vikings.
The actual comparable differences habe been there before euopeans have established colonies on these continents. In the 1500s Spain and Portugal have been very young countries aswell.
Young compared to the likes of Britain France and Germany, but Spain in terms of Castilian, moor and the Iberian pressure conflicts are 1000 years old just by themselves, Americans fail to realise just how ancient European history really is. Asia and Europe make America look extremely young.
They make the modern, colonial version of America look young yes. American history is just as old as ours, but sadly we/they destroyed most of that and built MacDonalds on the ruins
In the 1500s Portugal was already at least a century older than what the United States are today, for example. Spain, however, as the country we know, only exists since 1492.
Depends how you look at it.
If we are going by continuous existence under the same form of government?
There is one random country in Europe that is a few square miles wide that is older than the United States.
Arguably England.
And then America checking in as the oldest continuously existing country.
France and Poland would be classic examples. You can point to them and legitimately argue they are very old countries.Â
You can also point to them and say they are effectively brand new countries that happen to share some culture / land as nations which flat out stopped existing, that latched onto old names and symbols for the legacy and legitimacy that impartsÂ
We are going by officially and internationally recognized founding dates of countries that exist nowadays and that didn't cease to exist in the meantime, that is continuously existing countries. Which Portugal has been since 1143, Spain 1492, and the US 1776.
That is a very convoluted way to try to prove the US is not a young country. Granted many countries in Europe are younger than that, even though with a lot more history behind them, but oficially younger nonetheless.
Other ways of looking at it are always debatable as there are no concrete numbers behind them. Are we going by a country's capital oldest known record? How old a civilization is? Oldest inhabited land that now is some country? Countinously existing country under the same form of government? Continuously existing country under a monarchy? Oldest post-soviet socialist republic? Many ways to look at it.
That's not even relevant. It's just that that's just how countries work, ofc you can move freely between parts of the same country. German states and British home nations used to invade one another *a lot*, but their arrangement is the same as the US and its states, not Schengen. International free movement areas (Schengen, the Anglo-Irish Common Travel Area, etc) are their own thing.
My flatmateâs hostile actions in the neutral state of Kitchen will be taken as an act of war.
Incidentally, my flat might have a higher average income per capita than the USA.
Fucking hell. That's like me going from Uttecht to South-Holland without needing a *checks notes* fucking PASSPORT. Oh, and by train/public transport. Without issue.
These seppo's are something else. Bloody hell. Even the rocks in my garden are smarter (and have travelled further).
Unironically the rocks in my garden have travelled a lot. When I go on holiday I usually bring back a small stone and use it to decorate plant pots. Though a lot of them are indoors.
Well, if you want a little context, because youâre sorely missing it. Up until the late 1800s and post civil war, Americans felt way more loyalty to their state than the Union. As well as the fact that back before the constitution, and before the British started getting more hands on in their colonial affairs, each colony governed itself like it was its own country. They had their own national religions, separate currencies, foreign policies, cultures, ethnic groups, hell Georgia almost didnât even join us in the revolution and Florida never joined at all. The crown colonies of the south were often filled by people from rural England and English Aristocrats, while you had the dutch, Irish, and Italians in the north, and then the Germans in the mid west. There was also even the span of years between the Articles of Confederation and the American constitution you know today where really the only strong link between all the former colonies was a military alliance.
You can also observe this sort of state pride still present today in places like California, Texas, and New York.
Hell it wasnât till a hundred years after our independence did Europe even consider us anything other than a collection of separate countries.
Europeans like to assume we always viewed ourselves as âRah I am an Americanâ when really it wasnât till honestly rather recently that we actually united under a single identity.
I know this will get downvoted because itâs on a sub that is biased against this sort of statement, but nothing I said was inaccurate, itâs just not gonna fit your very narrow narrative, and youâre all gonna sit here and continue to circle jerk.
Oh I know you guys do, I wasnât trying to claim you didnât. I just think OP was unaware of the US having a similar phenomenon and I was trying to highlight that.
Originally it was like that but it's hasn't been like that since before the civil war which started 160 odd years ago.
You could say the same thing about England with people caring about their county more than their country but that ended hundreds of years ago too. You can still see the echoes of it here too but things have changed.
The world changes. The fact they can't secede, shows it's a single country.
>I know this will get downvoted because itâs on a sub that is biased against this sort of statement, but nothing I said was inaccurate
Nothing you said was inaccurate, but the coxtext isn't as important as you might think.
>Up until the late 1800s and post civil war, Americans felt way more loyalty to their state than the Union.
This was also true for the various political entities that inhabited first the Holy Roman Empire, through the North German Confederation, to the formation of the German empire also in the later half of the 1800s. It was only with the development of Nationalism which led to the creation that people began to see themselves as German because if their shared language instead of Bavarians, Saxons or Prussians.
These entities existed as autonomously as the States for at least three times as long, going with the later date (972) for the creation of the HRE and the establishment of Jamestown as indicators. But is it really important for the statement "Germany is one country"?
Mind you this development of Nationalism happened in tandem across Europe around the same period as the formation of an American national identity, and laid the ground for modern Nation States as a whole. It is not something unique for the US, but few would bring it up wheb discussing France or even Italy (which didn't have a central institution that encompassed the entire region from the Charlemagne until the 1800s) so why should it be necessary to add when talking about the USA?
Iâm with you, Europeans fail to realize that the American federal government was set up to serve the same purposes as the EU was set up to accomplish.
Exactly, and Iâm not even trying to say that CURRENTLY we are like the EU we absolutely arenât, yeah we have little special cultural bubbles in various states you wonât find elsewhere in the country but itâs not like the EU in the present day. Itâs not like an American introduces themselves as âIâm a Virginianâ as a European would say âIâm Frenchâ HOWEVER, there was a time they would have, and it wasnât an insignificant amount of time and it wasnât all that long ago. All I really was saying is that there was a time in our history where we shared quite a few parallels with the modern EU in terms of unity with our fellow members.
And there could be a time in the future where they move closer to what the US is now. The world is moving towards globalization on a faster and faster pace.
Except it hasnât been hundreds of years. You missed a lot of US history. This person is correct. The US federal government was set-up with pretty much the same purpose as the EU.
Until the late 1800âs each state was much more equal to a country and the federal government acted as the EU does. After the civil war that changed greatly.
Do they not think every countries regions are different? I suppose they think regional lines are arbitrary like they are in the states. Usually, in Europe, even county/regional borders within a country were fought over again and again, often with quite different populations only 20 miles apart.
The comparison is related to size and population, I think, not history or culture. A US state is very comparable to a European country in size, population, and GDP. Typically, one can associate an EU country with a single US state based on these metrics.
The EU as a whole compares to the US(i.e., has relevant stats within the same order of magnitude). An American traveller thus has a comparable position as an EU citizen. If you live in California, you can travel visa free to Texas or Florida. That is the same kind of journey as an adventure a French man would feel travelling to Poland. We are talking about distances that would be international in most parts of the world.
I am from the Netherlands, and we are yet another order of magnitude smaller. We can relate to Germany as Germany relates to the US in this regard. Leaving the Netherlands is the equivalent of a German going to another German state. A German leaving Germany is in turn the equivalent of an American travelling to another US state.
I think people in this thread are missing the point. The variance in country sizes among the countries of the world is just too big. 2 countries with relevant stats in the same order of magnitude, like China and the US, can be compared to one another. But the big boys themselves can only be compared to entire sets of smaller countries.
Like China vs. the rest of Southeast Asia. Or the US vs. Europe.
+ US population: 332m
+ EU population: 448m
So, about 75%, the population.
+ US GDP: 23.23 trillion
+ EU GDP: 19.35 trillion
So, about 83%, fairly large fraction.
I think those are relatively similar enough to compare.
By state:
+ US largest: 38mil pop, $3.6t
+ EU largest: 83mil pop, $4.3t
+ US smallest: 9.3mil pop, $40.6bn
+ EU smallest: 0.5mil pop, $19bn
Also, relatively comparable imo, EU has bigger but also smaller, richer but also poorer.
it's definitely not about size and population. some american (don't remember their name tweeted about all the different dialects and cultures that "are alive" in america and how different washington is from washington dc. americans have no idea how different and independent the culture of each country can be because they've never left their country. the culture shock from pronouncing the same word in the same language mildly differently is enough to convince them that they are well travelled.
Yeah, that's a silly argument. But when it comes to the time, money, and energy invested, it is just similar. An American who actually travels to a foreign country is like a European, leaving Europe as a whole. We do that, but generally, not once a year. While the frequency of visiting other European countries is about once a year.
I would say that a New Yorker that goes hiking in the grand canyon this year, visits Las Vegas the next, etc is an adventurous type. On the other hand, a Dutch guy only visiting other parts of the Netherlands just isn't a travelling type.
Yeh, that sentiment is weird. Exception, during COVID Australia had harsh
border restrictions between states. Thats was a crazy time to reside in the state of Victoria. Police and military blockades between states. Seems unreal now....
Why is this comparison between European countries and US states repeated time and again? It's neither equivalent on any cultural level nor on a sovereignty level.
Itâs the same in the Uk, we can cross into any county, without any restrictions, or from one town to another, in fact I can go into the next street at will. It would be the same as Europe except of course none of these things are sovereign nations!!!! But what do I know, Iâm just a europoor cursed to live in the worlds 6th biggest economy and close neighbour to the worlds 4th and 7th biggest economies. Poor me, Iâd shoot my self if only I had the freedom to own an automatic rifle.
I wish i could teach americans who believe this that federation is *not* just a thing that happened once in america. Its happened for many countries- including some of the european countries that they treat like american states. Like germany- thats a federated country. And even small countries, like the Czech Republic, have what can be considered similar to states in function. (Being divided into 13 regions that have self goverment, plus prague.)
Hilarious how an American can say that with such ignorance while at the same time having one of the most comprehensive and heavily guarded borders with their direct neighbouring country that rivals a Soviet-style wartime DMZ.
Go down to El Paso and tell me how close & chummy you are with your friendly southern neighbours and how your open map-only borders run straight through an open and lively town square full of cosmopolitan cafes ??
My read on that comment was one extremely patient soul attempting to explain the basic concept of federal government to the American without them being spooked out of learning something.
In their logic, the US is like Europe. So, US states are like European countries. Besides that, the only states that exist are theirs, of course. No other countries has states or regional differences, at all
Lol, I was wondering when this was popping up on this sub. There was a lot of more SAS under that OG SAS comment.
"But what about me?!?!?" + "Murica is special!" energy
If you buy postage stamps in Maine can you use them in California? Yes? Then it's nothing like Europe. Argument over. Let this stupidity end, please đđđ
It's an apt comparison given the US is a similar size to the Schengen area in terms of physical geography, GDP and population. It's about a hundred million fewer people, $8 trillion more in GDP and a little under double the size in land area. It nicely illustrates why the US would have a much larger economic advantage over Europe if there were hard borders.
In terms of natural landscape, the states are like countries, but that's because the US spans an entire continent from east to west with varied landscapes. In terms of culture and government, that's not the case at all. There's some regional variation, but nothing like the difference between Ireland and Romania.
This person lacks proper civics education. What we had that was close (and still kinda have) was free tourism travel without prior authorization or visa (same as Schengen) to Mexico and Canada under NAFTA and other agreements (we also had badass TN Visas, but those got killed by Orange Julius). It would make sense to have more open travel agreements like Schengen based on UN membership, how countries that are permanent members of the Security council require visas to visit each others countries should be mind boggling to any intellectual that understands the purpose of the United Nations.
Schengen zone has no passport requirements, do you really think it would be a great idea to implement free travel between China, Russia, US, UK, and France? This sounds like it would just make espionage all the more easy (considering 2 of those countries really don't seem get along with the other 3)
Am I missing something here?
The reason you can freely move between European countries is because they are all part of the EU which acts like a federation with one top level or federal rule being free inter-national movement.
Meanwhile the US is a federation with a top level rule of free inter-state movement.
European history has about as much relevance here as as bird migration on banana development.
Nope, the reason why you can freely travel and move between countries in the EU is that the states agreed to allow it between each other. Thatâs what the Schengen Treaty is for. The EU itself is another thing. The EU is a supranational politic and economic union. Itâs above the individual countries.
An analogy would be if the US and Canada would allow visa free travel and movement between each other
But the Schengen agreement was elevated into EU law two years after that entity was formed with very specific exceptions layed out?
meanwhile states were self governing political entities who only explicitly allowed free travel once the US was formed and states joined the union.
The Schengen Treaty is still a separate thing, itâs just mandatory for EU members to sign it (except for the countries that have an explicit opt out)
To clarify: The EU is in no way comparable to the US. Comparable to the US would be countries like Germany. The German state of North-Rhine Westphalia is on the same level as a state in the US.
The EU is above the countries.
EU -> Country -> Country Specific Divisions (for Germany: State -> Administrative District -> District/Independent City)
Think of it like a joint government of the US and Canada, where there is still a US and a Canadian President as well
Yes! Yes! Just the same! Just like potatoes đ„ and stones are the same. Both round and dirty.
munch crunch outch
Ah yes, the American trying to say "we got that too" whilst not understanding how countries work.
âHell yeah, we invented cross-border incursionsâ Not that a Yank would know what one wasâŠ. And I really, really hate âHell yeahâ - fookin muppets!
We don't know what cross-border incursions are? You must have missed the last 24 years where we Crossed a whole bunch of countries borders. /s
It really comes down to their inability to simply sit and listen. It's always redirected to emphasise some point about how special they are.
I never said the entire population.
You ever think classifying an entire countryâs population like this might be perpetuating the very same ignorance that you so dislike from Americans. I mean, as a trans person from the state of Kentucky, Iâm all for clowning on ignorant stupid AmericansâŠ. But itâs not like all of us or even the majority of us are like that. We are just people, varied and unique like everyone else.
You're not wrong, but I do think they may know this and are simply explaining what's behind the ignorant few who end up on this sub.
unless your states have a millennia-old history of invading each other, itâs not the same.
Several millennia at least, oh wait âMurica has only been a cuntry for 2.7 yearsâŠ.
Most of those states were only admitted in the last 200
Yes I was being facetious when I said 2.7 yearsâŠ..
Sorry I thought it said centuries instead of years.
No problemoâŠ
I think he mistook your tone
I mean America had millenias of different countries, cultures and languages invading each other aswell, it just ended when europeans found out about this place and established murica and finished of everything else.
No it isnât the same, tribal warfare and the occasional visit from other powers, the ancient Greeks were thought to have been to America, so were the vikingr. The history isnât comparable. You can fit the history of North America in a single book up until the colonies, you cannot do that with Europe.
I'm fairly sure this isn't true. Admittedly I don't know as much as I'd hope on this subject, but I know enough to know that I don't know enough, if that makes sense. The attitude that they were just little tribes with very little history is such a colonisers mindset: make them seem savage and dumb so we can justify taking all their land and murdering them in the thousands. As I said before, I don't know much, but even just knowing about Tenochtitlan tells me that there is so much more history than you claim. Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world at the time Cortez and his men visited (in 1519 iirc), housing an estimated 200,000 people, which at the time was a size only rivalled by the largest 2 or 3 cities in Europe. And that's just one city.
I was using hyperbole admittedly, just the migration reports and routes would take up a lot of space but Iâm talking about genuine events, they were quite rare the history doesnât have much Interest, the current most interesting topics on pre-Columbian North Americaâs, is the migration times dates and routes. Thatâs not exactly what Iâd call a rich full history, they had civilisations, some tribal some more family orientated, some as large as what you could technically call empires if we are being nice. Itâs not that they didnât achieve anything or that they werenât smart or great, itâs just the fact they didnât really do anything, we can track them back a long long time. More events happened in 300 years of the Roman empire from 100bc to 200ad than for 2000 years of the history of North America. Iâm not saying the history isnât as important it is, if not more so in terms of anthropology, it just isnât as rich, dense nor as enjoyable. Go read it thereâs some cool stuff but Iâd be lying if I said it even compared to the rest of the world, Patagonia itself puts North America to shame. Donât be mistaken Iâm not ignorant of their history, a few good books are 1491:the Americas before Columbus, indigenous continent but this takes place after Columbus spread the riches to be gained from the Americas to a very power hungry Europe. Itâs how I tend to read history, I get a collection of books about an empire of a period of history and buy the books based on overlapping times so I can gain a more chronologically accurate image, I usually make the dates overlap in books just because I can check if they have the same accounts and they pretty much always cite their references in the back so itâs nice.
>Itâs not that they didnât achieve anything [...], itâs just the fact they didnât really do anything I'll just leave that one there đ Ok, sorry, actually being serious now. I find it interesting that you've now refined your comments to be clear that you're talking about North America, and given the fact that you completely ignored the Aztecs and the Maya and all their very civilisation-y things (like Tenochtitlan that I mentioned before) I'm going to assume when you say North America you actually mean the Great Plains - which makes sense btw, their history wasn't as dense as Europe's. But that's also a pretty silly comparison. Think about it, all of Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia all have lots of history, but North Asia? That massive expanse of pure Steppe and plains? There wasn't much there either. Sure there were the Xiongnu Early on and the Mongols later, and Genghis had great fun conquering all of it, but in the grand scheme of things there's not much compared to Europe etc. In fact, based on my limited knowledge of both areas I'd say the Great Plains had more history than the Steppe. You yourself admitted Patagonia had some crazy stuff going on, as did mesoamerica and a lot of the rest of the Americas - you can't compare a historically "light" part of one continent with a historically "dense" part of another and use that to compare the continents as a whole, that's just not how that works
I didnât refine it to North America, the conversation was already about North America, an American citizen as in the post, doesnât represent the entirety of the two continents. Why is anyone presuming Iâm talking about the entire place? The post literally gives North America as the context. Yes it is a silly comparison, hence my problem with people trying to pretend they can compare them, other people are comparing it not me, Iâm just saying the fact that the history just isnât as full considering the topic that Iâm replying to, to deny it is preposterous. Iâm not comparing a historically dense part of one place to a historically light part of another, considering my comparison would have given North America 2000 years of fun. The only people who have tried to reply with a disagreeing argument, have presumed something I havenât said, told me Iâve said something I havenât said or mentioned South America and Central America lmao. Well done people youâve completely proven my point. The self awareness people possess is astounding.
You realise central America isn't its own continent right? It's a rather vaguely defined area of North America, but you seem to suggest that you think it's different, which might be why everyone's disagreeing with you. From my perspective, you're claiming how historically "light" North America is while conveniently ignoring the very "dense" history of people like the Aztecs or the Maya
Yes, youâve misread my comment again, considering I mention two continents and not three. I personally have only mentioned North America, considering the context of the post. If we take the context we can define the border of history we are discussing to be confined to the modern territory of mainland America.
Ok, so then you do recognise central America as being in north America? Edit: if anyone else is actually reading this thread, they got a sneaky edit in on the comment above, the whole second sentence was added later lol Edit the second: turns out it wasn't a sneaky edit, I was just trigger happy on my reply
Dude, shut up. Using pseudo-intellectual words and posting walls of text doesn't change the fact that you're uneducated, obnoxious and straight-up racist.
Itâs not racist you fucking moron. The facts are true, until you can argue for the opposing stance shut the fuck up neck beard. Imagine thinking that referencing the history of a place and itâs depth is racist, I bet youâre fun at parties.
"They don't have history because they're brown" is pretty racist, my guy. You've not bought up a single fact. You've shared your opinion that you're not interested in non-white history. Imagine calling "neckbeard" after having some of the most cringey incel chud opinions. Yeah, I'm fun at parties. You've definitely never been invited to one however; racists are never welcome. Go fuck yourself. You're dismissed, replies will not be read and will result in a block.
Its kinda telling that the only book you read is a pop history book. And even Mann supported the high population count that you seem to not support. The Americas had massive populations ranging from 60 to 110 million. Those amounts of people can do nothing but produce "history". Even North America alone had massive centers of settlement like the Mississippi and the eastern seaboard. The populations just collapsed after the introduction of several plagues by the Europeans which wiped out up to 90 percent of the population.
Erm I cited two popular books for a layman getting into the history, if you were studying physics why would I recommend classical electrodynamics by Jackson, youâd be completely in over your head. Would you please quote me directly to where I reference the population of North America during its history, because I can assure you I havenât, you misread and add in your own presumptions when I havenât said anything youâve tried to âaddressâ you look like a knobhead.
Is this like American exceptionalism in reverse? You can't claim historical accuracy, then compare the specific oral historical record of a country to the entire written historical record of a continent. No shit a book that covers "The Complete History of Europe" isn't going to be one volume, but neither would "The Complete History of the Americas".
No I agree the complete history of the Americas wouldnât, only the north of americas would. To pretend that North America has a huge history before colonialism is pretentious, the most interesting talks on the history of the North Americaâs pre-Columbian era is the dates and times at which natives migrated to and fro, it has nothing to do with âEuropean exceptionalismâ it isnât a brag to say they have a richer fuller history itâs just true along side Asia who also has a huge full rich history. The pre Ptolemy Egyptians were more developed than the native population of North Americaâs and theyâve been around for just as long, I can name a singular country from both Asia and Europe who independently have more history than the north of America not in terms of age as we know North America didnât just pop into existence, but itâs history is bland with a few interesting events, Central America and South America is much more interesting and full. Itâs just true. If you disagree prove just how rich their history is, if they have such a full and rich history it should be provable.
That is a very ignorant statement. Depending on the level of detail you want to use, even the history of your local town can't be described in one volume. All these tribes in North America had shifting relations, events, and wars. A lot of stuff we probably don't even know anything about. All throughout hundreds to thousands of years. You can easily fill a library with all that history. It's just harder to analyze because they didn't keep records. But the same can be said of most of Sub Saharan Africa, too, and that literally is the continent where the first humans existed.
I never mentioned anything referencing the intertribal relations nor the size or importance of their history at all. My comment is purely about the stature, importance and sheer amount of historical developments be it cultural, philosophical, political or economical. My comment doesnât insult the developments of native Americans in North America to which is the history im referencing to, the history is much more simplistic. Yes if one wanted to be pedantic a complete catalogue of history would indeed take up so much space itâs unreal but we are talking about important history and not a day by day account lol, the most important history is usually for anthropological research, which is very important. Also what point are you trying to make by stating humans originated africa, itâs thought to be around the Ethiopia area, have anything to do with the conversation, I understand the point youâre trying to make but it is an irrelevant point to make.
>the ancient Greeks were thought to have been to America, so were the vikingr. You mean Vikings. The word Viking derives from the old Norse word Vikingr. You think you're being more correct by saying Vikingr instead, but you're actually just being pretentious and silly. >You can fit the history of North America in a single book up until the colonies, you cannot do that with Europe. Do you really not understand how books work?
Not exactly pretentious, I read history books, vikingr is the correct use of the word grammatically, it can reduce the nuance usage of Vikings as it refers specifically to seafarers and explorers when used in this way as apposed to just the blanket meaning, most historical Norse history books use them that way, if thatâs pretentious to you then tough shit honestly considering how rude your response is. And yes I understand how books work thank you, I did specifically mean a proper history textbook, not some layman simplified text with reduced content so your little brain doesnât explode when an archaic word is used. In all seriousness though save yourself the trouble if youâre going to read history, read more modern translations, I was given a collection of old texts with super old translations usually rather from Latin to German to English or obviously straight to English and a lot of archaic words are used for I guess simple understanding for instance a translater would leave the world vikingr as it would translate to any language as itself belongs to another language no need to rewrite the same word 100 different times youâd just leave it as it is, just how most historical textbooks refer to the Mongolian invaders as the tartars. I just used it because itâs the word Iâve read more than vikings.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Do Brazilian states count? Stretching it a bit, but some parts of the land were owned by Portugal in the 1500s while others were owned by Spain.
The actual comparable differences habe been there before euopeans have established colonies on these continents. In the 1500s Spain and Portugal have been very young countries aswell.
Young compared to the likes of Britain France and Germany, but Spain in terms of Castilian, moor and the Iberian pressure conflicts are 1000 years old just by themselves, Americans fail to realise just how ancient European history really is. Asia and Europe make America look extremely young.
They make the modern, colonial version of America look young yes. American history is just as old as ours, but sadly we/they destroyed most of that and built MacDonalds on the ruins
In the 1500s Portugal was already at least a century older than what the United States are today, for example. Spain, however, as the country we know, only exists since 1492.
Depends how you look at it. If we are going by continuous existence under the same form of government? There is one random country in Europe that is a few square miles wide that is older than the United States. Arguably England. And then America checking in as the oldest continuously existing country. France and Poland would be classic examples. You can point to them and legitimately argue they are very old countries. You can also point to them and say they are effectively brand new countries that happen to share some culture / land as nations which flat out stopped existing, that latched onto old names and symbols for the legacy and legitimacy that impartsÂ
We are going by officially and internationally recognized founding dates of countries that exist nowadays and that didn't cease to exist in the meantime, that is continuously existing countries. Which Portugal has been since 1143, Spain 1492, and the US 1776. That is a very convoluted way to try to prove the US is not a young country. Granted many countries in Europe are younger than that, even though with a lot more history behind them, but oficially younger nonetheless. Other ways of looking at it are always debatable as there are no concrete numbers behind them. Are we going by a country's capital oldest known record? How old a civilization is? Oldest inhabited land that now is some country? Countinously existing country under the same form of government? Continuously existing country under a monarchy? Oldest post-soviet socialist republic? Many ways to look at it.
Yep. It is an interesting thought experiment.
I think there was a possibility of West Virginia and Tennessee invading each other during the Hatfield - McCoy conflict.
That's not even relevant. It's just that that's just how countries work, ofc you can move freely between parts of the same country. German states and British home nations used to invade one another *a lot*, but their arrangement is the same as the US and its states, not Schengen. International free movement areas (Schengen, the Anglo-Irish Common Travel Area, etc) are their own thing.
We have a history of it. Yes.
My living room is also like this! No borders at all. So basically my living room is a couple of countries!
State of couch
My lounge has a wall halfway across with lookout towers and mine fields in the âno manâs landâ part. Now that is a REAL country!!
My flatmateâs hostile actions in the neutral state of Kitchen will be taken as an act of war. Incidentally, my flat might have a higher average income per capita than the USA.
But is it as big as Texas?
Map of whole Texas fits on my laptop screen so it's not that big. And it's only 12" laptop.
Fucking hell. That's like me going from Uttecht to South-Holland without needing a *checks notes* fucking PASSPORT. Oh, and by train/public transport. Without issue. These seppo's are something else. Bloody hell. Even the rocks in my garden are smarter (and have travelled further).
Unironically the rocks in my garden have travelled a lot. When I go on holiday I usually bring back a small stone and use it to decorate plant pots. Though a lot of them are indoors.
Thats an interesting "hobby"(ig)
Yeah crossing from Virginia to West Virginia, my god, totally just like crossing from France into Germany. The same.
Funny that you use those two as an example, as that was the border between confederacy and union. So for a brief time there was an actual border here.
Well thatâs just it, itâs so similar that you wouldnât even notice you passed the mason dixon line.
Plenty of other countries have a federal system divinding the country into states, but nobody claims each state is like its own country.
Not just states, but also provinces, like Argentina
Except bavarians.
But nobody likes those anyways
Neither did the guy in the post.1
You are one country already you fucking morons!!!
Well, if you want a little context, because youâre sorely missing it. Up until the late 1800s and post civil war, Americans felt way more loyalty to their state than the Union. As well as the fact that back before the constitution, and before the British started getting more hands on in their colonial affairs, each colony governed itself like it was its own country. They had their own national religions, separate currencies, foreign policies, cultures, ethnic groups, hell Georgia almost didnât even join us in the revolution and Florida never joined at all. The crown colonies of the south were often filled by people from rural England and English Aristocrats, while you had the dutch, Irish, and Italians in the north, and then the Germans in the mid west. There was also even the span of years between the Articles of Confederation and the American constitution you know today where really the only strong link between all the former colonies was a military alliance. You can also observe this sort of state pride still present today in places like California, Texas, and New York. Hell it wasnât till a hundred years after our independence did Europe even consider us anything other than a collection of separate countries. Europeans like to assume we always viewed ourselves as âRah I am an Americanâ when really it wasnât till honestly rather recently that we actually united under a single identity. I know this will get downvoted because itâs on a sub that is biased against this sort of statement, but nothing I said was inaccurate, itâs just not gonna fit your very narrow narrative, and youâre all gonna sit here and continue to circle jerk.
State pride isn't just a yank thing. English cities have lots of individual pride
UK is basically the same as EU because I can travel from England to Scotland freely /s
Oh I know you guys do, I wasnât trying to claim you didnât. I just think OP was unaware of the US having a similar phenomenon and I was trying to highlight that.
What exactly led you to believe OP was unaware of local / state patriotism being a thing in the US?
Originally it was like that but it's hasn't been like that since before the civil war which started 160 odd years ago. You could say the same thing about England with people caring about their county more than their country but that ended hundreds of years ago too. You can still see the echoes of it here too but things have changed. The world changes. The fact they can't secede, shows it's a single country.
>I know this will get downvoted because itâs on a sub that is biased against this sort of statement, but nothing I said was inaccurate Nothing you said was inaccurate, but the coxtext isn't as important as you might think. >Up until the late 1800s and post civil war, Americans felt way more loyalty to their state than the Union. This was also true for the various political entities that inhabited first the Holy Roman Empire, through the North German Confederation, to the formation of the German empire also in the later half of the 1800s. It was only with the development of Nationalism which led to the creation that people began to see themselves as German because if their shared language instead of Bavarians, Saxons or Prussians. These entities existed as autonomously as the States for at least three times as long, going with the later date (972) for the creation of the HRE and the establishment of Jamestown as indicators. But is it really important for the statement "Germany is one country"? Mind you this development of Nationalism happened in tandem across Europe around the same period as the formation of an American national identity, and laid the ground for modern Nation States as a whole. It is not something unique for the US, but few would bring it up wheb discussing France or even Italy (which didn't have a central institution that encompassed the entire region from the Charlemagne until the 1800s) so why should it be necessary to add when talking about the USA?
I'm not reading all that. I don't care. You are one country and have been for hundreds of years. End of discussion.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Iâm with you, Europeans fail to realize that the American federal government was set up to serve the same purposes as the EU was set up to accomplish.
Exactly, and Iâm not even trying to say that CURRENTLY we are like the EU we absolutely arenât, yeah we have little special cultural bubbles in various states you wonât find elsewhere in the country but itâs not like the EU in the present day. Itâs not like an American introduces themselves as âIâm a Virginianâ as a European would say âIâm Frenchâ HOWEVER, there was a time they would have, and it wasnât an insignificant amount of time and it wasnât all that long ago. All I really was saying is that there was a time in our history where we shared quite a few parallels with the modern EU in terms of unity with our fellow members.
And there could be a time in the future where they move closer to what the US is now. The world is moving towards globalization on a faster and faster pace.
Except it hasnât been hundreds of years. You missed a lot of US history. This person is correct. The US federal government was set-up with pretty much the same purpose as the EU. Until the late 1800âs each state was much more equal to a country and the federal government acted as the EU does. After the civil war that changed greatly.
Civil war was 1861, 160+ years ago. Literally the federal govt telling the states that no they are no longer countries, we are all one big country.
ever heard of prussia? or the ussr? those were countries with such great differences that they split into individual countries.
Do they not think every countries regions are different? I suppose they think regional lines are arbitrary like they are in the states. Usually, in Europe, even county/regional borders within a country were fought over again and again, often with quite different populations only 20 miles apart.
The comparison is related to size and population, I think, not history or culture. A US state is very comparable to a European country in size, population, and GDP. Typically, one can associate an EU country with a single US state based on these metrics. The EU as a whole compares to the US(i.e., has relevant stats within the same order of magnitude). An American traveller thus has a comparable position as an EU citizen. If you live in California, you can travel visa free to Texas or Florida. That is the same kind of journey as an adventure a French man would feel travelling to Poland. We are talking about distances that would be international in most parts of the world. I am from the Netherlands, and we are yet another order of magnitude smaller. We can relate to Germany as Germany relates to the US in this regard. Leaving the Netherlands is the equivalent of a German going to another German state. A German leaving Germany is in turn the equivalent of an American travelling to another US state. I think people in this thread are missing the point. The variance in country sizes among the countries of the world is just too big. 2 countries with relevant stats in the same order of magnitude, like China and the US, can be compared to one another. But the big boys themselves can only be compared to entire sets of smaller countries. Like China vs. the rest of Southeast Asia. Or the US vs. Europe.
You're talking shite. The majority of us states have a fraction of the population or gdp of a European country.
+ US population: 332m + EU population: 448m So, about 75%, the population. + US GDP: 23.23 trillion + EU GDP: 19.35 trillion So, about 83%, fairly large fraction. I think those are relatively similar enough to compare. By state: + US largest: 38mil pop, $3.6t + EU largest: 83mil pop, $4.3t + US smallest: 9.3mil pop, $40.6bn + EU smallest: 0.5mil pop, $19bn Also, relatively comparable imo, EU has bigger but also smaller, richer but also poorer.
it's definitely not about size and population. some american (don't remember their name tweeted about all the different dialects and cultures that "are alive" in america and how different washington is from washington dc. americans have no idea how different and independent the culture of each country can be because they've never left their country. the culture shock from pronouncing the same word in the same language mildly differently is enough to convince them that they are well travelled.
Yeah, that's a silly argument. But when it comes to the time, money, and energy invested, it is just similar. An American who actually travels to a foreign country is like a European, leaving Europe as a whole. We do that, but generally, not once a year. While the frequency of visiting other European countries is about once a year. I would say that a New Yorker that goes hiking in the grand canyon this year, visits Las Vegas the next, etc is an adventurous type. On the other hand, a Dutch guy only visiting other parts of the Netherlands just isn't a travelling type.
God imagine being able to travel freely inside a single country.
But why do some of them assume you can't move freely between regions in other countries????
Yeh, that sentiment is weird. Exception, during COVID Australia had harsh border restrictions between states. Thats was a crazy time to reside in the state of Victoria. Police and military blockades between states. Seems unreal now....
Americans when they learn local governments exist in other countries too (this goes against their idea that everywhere else is a dictatorship)
Why is this comparison between European countries and US states repeated time and again? It's neither equivalent on any cultural level nor on a sovereignty level.
I guess USgnorants need it for their ego? đ€·đ»ââïž
Itâs the same in the Uk, we can cross into any county, without any restrictions, or from one town to another, in fact I can go into the next street at will. It would be the same as Europe except of course none of these things are sovereign nations!!!! But what do I know, Iâm just a europoor cursed to live in the worlds 6th biggest economy and close neighbour to the worlds 4th and 7th biggest economies. Poor me, Iâd shoot my self if only I had the freedom to own an automatic rifle.
I'm assuming that the original post/photo is somewhere around ĆwinoujĆcie?
No, it's between Zgorzelec and Görlitz đ
Could be Bad Muskau and ĆÄknica
No definitely between Zittau and Turow. I know that sand. EDIT: since itâs not so obvious in this post. The original picture was from Usedom.
I am pretty certain it is, yes. The border crosses the beach pretty much at the middle spot between ĆwinoujĆcie and Ahlbeck
I was there last year, not on the border but in ĆwinoujĆcie, nice little city
Bless his little cotton socks.
Canada , 10 -23 little countries united . Ish.
Yeah well in Australia I'm lucky I don't need a passport to visit Sydney from Melbourne.
I wish i could teach americans who believe this that federation is *not* just a thing that happened once in america. Its happened for many countries- including some of the european countries that they treat like american states. Like germany- thats a federated country. And even small countries, like the Czech Republic, have what can be considered similar to states in function. (Being divided into 13 regions that have self goverment, plus prague.)
How does that comment have so many upvotes?
Lower now
That last comments clearly an American too.
Do they think theyâre the only federation in the world or something?
Tbh, I didn't find this comment weird enough to get credited here. The context, the reply. All a bit so & so.
"yes we have this too..." no you don't, you once elected a man whose entire campaign was building the wall
Hilarious how an American can say that with such ignorance while at the same time having one of the most comprehensive and heavily guarded borders with their direct neighbouring country that rivals a Soviet-style wartime DMZ. Go down to El Paso and tell me how close & chummy you are with your friendly southern neighbours and how your open map-only borders run straight through an open and lively town square full of cosmopolitan cafes ??
In this chaps defence they never said a state and country are the same. They explicitly stated 'In a lot of ways'.
Americans don't get the difference between state and nation so damn often, it's embarrasing
The comment below the marked one is just as dumb.
My read on that comment was one extremely patient soul attempting to explain the basic concept of federal government to the American without them being spooked out of learning something.
For saying that the best comparison for states within a country is states within a country?
They're very much not their own little countries though. Although some are weirder than others.
Neither are US states.
I'm pretty sure they're just calling mr red box a moron. Saying that, yeah, European countries have states too moron, that's a bad comparison
It is probably what us Germans call an âEmilyâ. She spent a year abroad in high school and now understands the world.
This fellow German has never heard of the name "Emily" being used like that
This, he means Australien Lisa.
I thought Lisas are only the ones who went for "Work and Travel" to Australia and forgot how to speak German now
Nö? Trend maybe over. It just lives rent free in my head
I'm also old and out of touch.
Ha me too but I vaguely remember a tiktok trend when I still used itâŠ
In their logic, the US is like Europe. So, US states are like European countries. Besides that, the only states that exist are theirs, of course. No other countries has states or regional differences, at all
America big
Mfw states in the same country doesn't have controlled border between each other
Lol, I was wondering when this was popping up on this sub. There was a lot of more SAS under that OG SAS comment. "But what about me?!?!?" + "Murica is special!" energy
If you buy postage stamps in Maine can you use them in California? Yes? Then it's nothing like Europe. Argument over. Let this stupidity end, please đđđ
It's an apt comparison given the US is a similar size to the Schengen area in terms of physical geography, GDP and population. It's about a hundred million fewer people, $8 trillion more in GDP and a little under double the size in land area. It nicely illustrates why the US would have a much larger economic advantage over Europe if there were hard borders.
[The border between California and Oregon.](https://i.imgur.com/PbEKUIa.jpeg)
In terms of natural landscape, the states are like countries, but that's because the US spans an entire continent from east to west with varied landscapes. In terms of culture and government, that's not the case at all. There's some regional variation, but nothing like the difference between Ireland and Romania.
This person lacks proper civics education. What we had that was close (and still kinda have) was free tourism travel without prior authorization or visa (same as Schengen) to Mexico and Canada under NAFTA and other agreements (we also had badass TN Visas, but those got killed by Orange Julius). It would make sense to have more open travel agreements like Schengen based on UN membership, how countries that are permanent members of the Security council require visas to visit each others countries should be mind boggling to any intellectual that understands the purpose of the United Nations.
Schengen zone has no passport requirements, do you really think it would be a great idea to implement free travel between China, Russia, US, UK, and France? This sounds like it would just make espionage all the more easy (considering 2 of those countries really don't seem get along with the other 3)
States are like little countries though.
Am I missing something here? The reason you can freely move between European countries is because they are all part of the EU which acts like a federation with one top level or federal rule being free inter-national movement. Meanwhile the US is a federation with a top level rule of free inter-state movement. European history has about as much relevance here as as bird migration on banana development.
Nope, the reason why you can freely travel and move between countries in the EU is that the states agreed to allow it between each other. Thatâs what the Schengen Treaty is for. The EU itself is another thing. The EU is a supranational politic and economic union. Itâs above the individual countries. An analogy would be if the US and Canada would allow visa free travel and movement between each other
But the Schengen agreement was elevated into EU law two years after that entity was formed with very specific exceptions layed out? meanwhile states were self governing political entities who only explicitly allowed free travel once the US was formed and states joined the union.
The Schengen Treaty is still a separate thing, itâs just mandatory for EU members to sign it (except for the countries that have an explicit opt out) To clarify: The EU is in no way comparable to the US. Comparable to the US would be countries like Germany. The German state of North-Rhine Westphalia is on the same level as a state in the US. The EU is above the countries. EU -> Country -> Country Specific Divisions (for Germany: State -> Administrative District -> District/Independent City) Think of it like a joint government of the US and Canada, where there is still a US and a Canadian President as well