This came up in the "American Ignorance" thread and really bothered me. The implication is that America is "young" compared to unspecified nations which I presume to be Europe. Aside from the fact that the question is flawed as it pertains to subject; it operates on a peculiar presence.

Ignore for a moment the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***-contest mentality of "my country is younger than yours" and think for a second about the question. How OLD is America? 226 years by my count (at least for another couple of months.) How old is France for example? Well the French revolution started well AFTER that date. Germany was assembled in the 1870's if I remember correctly; as was Italy. England achieved it's revolution in the 17th century but has existed as a national entity for centuries more.

The question is, how do we define WHEN a country was born? Nobody living under the rule of the Sun King for example would have called themselves a frenchman, they would be a loyal subject of the King.

It doesn't mean anything that the first civilizations were located in the countries of Pakistan, Iraq and Egypt. The age of nation relates to age of nationalism in that country. People have lived in India for a long time but they have thought of themselves as Punjabi or Bengali not Indian.

Joe

You say the question arose in the "American Ignorance" debate and imply that it hinted America was younger than Europe. You do well to bring up the French revolution and the establishment of Germany as Germany. I'm not sure of the dates, so I'm operating based on the data you provided.

I think people view America as being younger because they don't really consider the Native Americans as having any real claim over "American territory." The same is not true, however, when considering the old empires that ruled throughout Europe in what is now, for example, England, France, Germany and Italy. Rather than a few scattered loin cloths, people think instead of the Roman Empire, Napoleon, King Louis, King Henry and so on.

To be honest, until seeing it actually brought up here, I likely would have stuck on the side claiming America's youth. But taking into consideration the power shifts throughout the region, I would agree that America is not so young as it seems. Empires have ruled throughout Europe for centuries, but they simply were not the countries we know today. Beyond even the French revolution or the original establishment of Germany, a case might even be made for rebirth following the World Wars. Out of the ashes and all that good stuff...

Good topic. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Joe.

The countries of Europe have had (relatively) static borders for centurites longer than the US. Although their form of government might have changed, the country and the people who populate it, have not.

When the US came into being, breaking away from colonial status, most of Europe had been around for centuries.

Ranciduncle:


I would agree that the definition of country starts with the identification of it as a nation, not its current form of government.

Young means growing, and we still are working towards maturity, but it is made all the more difficult by the constant influx of immigrants with old ideas.
Old, to me, implies being on the downward slide into senility and incontinence.
(sorry, EU types, if that offends, but nothing lasts forever)

I think a country can be defined being born when it has a ruling government.

So we can say when the british had the Untied States as part of it's empire, that was when we were born and "living".

The fight for independence can be seen as the U.S.'s rebellion years like we see in teens & winning independence was our moving into adulthood.

So, in short, a country is born when it has a government.

The issue,the Youth of the Nation, makes me excited. Because people usually use other serious words not youth when

they want to talk about naiton,politics etc. I think the words,The Youth of the Nation, is regarded differently by every

individual.I mean it can be understood into diverse meaning to all people who read it.

Before I talk about it,I'm an Asian girl. Of course, I don't know about western nations or other country exactly. So I'll think

the youth of the naiton in the view of Asia nation.

I think the youth of the nation is the time when every people belong to one country try to develop their country and pride

and joy the country.Surely,there are dispute, conflict, some disorder.Neverthless you know the nation will be more

developed through the difficulities. The most valuable time is not developed but developing.For instance, when one

man is adolescent, they have difficulty in all his life but he is passionate and feels alive man when he is juveniles or youth.

Even though the nation is developed country, it can be the youth of the nation. Because economical develop is not all.

If a people live strive to live enthusiastically and love their naiton, it is simply the time the youth of the naiton,I

think.

While it's useful to talkabout the ages of the modern states of France, Italy, Germany, etc. as being comparable or younger than the USA, I think that France (for example) is very much older as a claimed identity than the French state, revolutionary, monarchic, empirical, or what have you.

Back in the Middle Ages, when much of France was technically part of England, the English knew exactly who the French were, and the French knew who the English were. Amongst themselves, there were Gasconnes, Normans, Bretons, and so on, but by comparison to outsiders, they could all see that they had something in common (even if it wasn't, in those days, a single language and culture).

And even then, what wold later become the modern French state was unified under a single government (albeit a feudal monarchy) by Charlemagne in the first millennium. The fact that it later broke up, reunified, broke up again, and so on does not make "France" itself a new concept. The same could also be said of most of the European states that have changed shape and system of government down the centuries.

For example, Texans only officially became "Americans" (in the modern, appopriated sense of "United States citizens", rather than the literal sense that describes Mexicans and Brazilians the same way) when they joined the union, but did they until that point really feel entirely separate from other "Americans"?

So I'd say another way that one could determine the 'birth' of a country is when people stop describing themselves solely according to their tribal identity, and start to talk in terms of their identity within the "new" state. Equally, a critical difference comes into being when the rest of the world start calling you something else. When did American settlers begin to distinguish themselves as "American" as distinct from "British settlers in America"? I bet it was some years before the Revolution.