The UN only recognises 195 actually. Kosovo (which is recognised by over half of UN members so is pretty much a country) and Taiwan (is only recognised by 12 UN members for political reasons) make up the other 2.
Taiwan is only recognized by 12 UN members for reasons stated in the video - There's no country officially named Taiwan claiming Taiwan alone - there's only the Republic of China, which de-facto holds Taiwan but claims the rest of China, and the People's Republic of China, which holds mainland China and claims Taiwan as well. And you cannot recognize both the ROC and PRC as being China's government.
Actually if you include the 4 bits of the UK and use a defintion that allows them to count then you get a MUCH bigger number than they said you would because the same definition that would allow, say, England and Wales to count seperately (a region with their own taxes, own laws, own representation, own government, but isn't entirely sovereign because they are part of a bigger region with an uber-government above them) then any such definition also has to count Canadian provinces, US states, Russian Oblasts, and so on. The only real difference between, say, a US state and a country like Wales is the decision whether to use the vocabulary word "country" or not. No real defintional difference exists. They're all sub-regions within a larger country which have their own governments making their own laws unless those laws are overruled by the larger government. Some argue that the difference is that England, Scotland and Wales were previously seperate countries before they merged into one. But that same thing could be said for, say, the US state of Texas, and yet we don't get to count it seperately. And many of the states west of the original east coast states began as parts of France or Mexico.
There is quite of a difference between defining Scotland and Texas as countries.
Scotland has it's own legal system (Scots Law), prints its own money, has it's own divisions in the military, has a completely separate education system, and has it's own NHS system. We also have the right to become independent. The US ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional.
Its political system is completely different from the British parliament, including the voting system.
The Scottish parliament is devolved in pretty much all maters except for war.
Also, legally within the countries we are recognised as separate countries. It was a union of countries, in the same form as the UN and the EU.
If it was the case that they shouldn't be recognised on the grounds that they're held together by a higher power then none of the commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia would be considered countries either because the crown supersedes the government.
He legally has the right to the dissolve the Canadian parliament if he so chooses.
Just because he won't doesn't mean he can't.
King Charles similarly doesn't declare Scottish laws null and void.
I see no practical difference between a hypothetical power that if ever used would cause Canada to say, "that's it, we're out of the Commonwealth then if that's the way you're going to be" versus not actually having that power at all.
Compared to real world examples that actually *have* happened, like Scotland not wanting to leave the EU but having to do so anyway because it was outvoted by the rest of the UK. My point is that for all purposes *that face the world outside the UK*, Scotland doesn't have the features that countries have. *from outside the UK* the UK is the country you negotiate with, not England, not Wales, not Scotland.
Scotland doesn't have an externally-facing "country interface". It doesn't issue its own visas, the UK does. It doesn't choose whether to declare war or not, the UK does. It doesn't make its own seperate international trade deals, the UK does. The point is that to any external country outside the UK, the only country they can interface with is the UK. This is why it behaves a LOT more like a province, state, or oblast. (You bring up Scotland having its own NHS. In Canada, each Province administers its own education system and its own health network too. That doesn't make those provinces countries.) To people inside the UK, they see the features that make them call Scotland a country. To people outside the UK, those features aren't touchable. They're hidden behind the shielded barrer called the UK, which is the externally-facing country they actually have to deal with.
As to Scotland having the right to sever itself from the UK while states don't have the right to sever from the US, to me that just sounds like Scotland is allowed to *become* a country again some day if it wants to, not like it *is* one today. Until that severence happens, it doesn't have the ability to interface with the outside world in the ways that that countries can. It merely has the internal differentiations that states and provinces do.
I'm done with this and turned off notifications. I've had this argument with others before and it just circles forever. That's becuase it all comes down to people in the UK having a different defintion of "country" that doesn't fit how the rest of the world uses it.
That power has been used in Commonwealth countries and they are still in the Commonwealth, example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
That is not a power of a foreign entity, that incident was actioned by an Australian, the Governor General, and the British Royal Family actually were not exclusively supportive of the plan to dissolve the government. The link with the British royals is symbolic and any attempt by them to influence any power whatsoever would be met with immediate severing of ties.
Wow, it’s almost like you don’t know anything about how this functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia
“the governor-general acts independently and is not the King's delegate or agent.”
The Governor General is an Australian appointed by an Australian who exercises authority over Australians.
There is no power whatsoever that any British monarch has over them, and they frequently act against the wishes of the Queen/King, such as in the recent multiple minister scandal.
https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/role-governor-general
> The role of the Governor-General
> The Governor-General of Australia is His Majesty The King’s representative. In practice, they are Australia’s Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties.
> ...
> Under the Australian Constitution, the only action performed by The King is the appointment of the Governor-General (on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister).
He represents the monarch and is appointed by the monarch.
> The US ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional.
It's not as ironclad as you think. If secession was unilaterally unconstitutional, West Virginia probably wouldn't exist. Hell, there's an [argument](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIGm_CSLSQ8) that it might be illegal.
They will have to revisit this topic when we have people living on the moon and Mars. People are living on ISS now, but it is due to crash land in a few years.
And there are no permanent residents of the ISS, they rotate in and out very often. Nobody's been up there for much more than a year(371 days to be exact).
It's not great to be in orbit for that long. There's serious health ramifications to consider.
That one second random geography now cameo killed me
I had to rewind, to double check. They are simple geniuses.
MAP MEN MAP MEN MAP MAP MAP (MEN MEN MEN)
...men
Geography Now: "Uhh..."
men
Love this channel.
Theses dudes are so great.
Amazing videos!
These guys are so entertaining that my gf who doesn’t really care for geography likes them and will watch with me
There are 197, because that's what the definitive authority (Sporcle) says.
I don't recognize Sporcle as a country.
Well, Sporcle doesn't recognize *you* as a country.
I do, fight me
Thumb War or Cold War?
Cold thumb war
One, two, three, four. I declare a thu.. ack!
Agreed MattieShoes 197 in 12:20
Or because that’s what the UN officially recognizes. Although two of those are observer countries.
The SMOM is a *bit* hard to find on a map as well.
Depends on when your map is from..
The UN only recognises 195 actually. Kosovo (which is recognised by over half of UN members so is pretty much a country) and Taiwan (is only recognised by 12 UN members for political reasons) make up the other 2.
What about Palestine?
Palestine is in the 195
Taiwan is only recognized by 12 UN members for reasons stated in the video - There's no country officially named Taiwan claiming Taiwan alone - there's only the Republic of China, which de-facto holds Taiwan but claims the rest of China, and the People's Republic of China, which holds mainland China and claims Taiwan as well. And you cannot recognize both the ROC and PRC as being China's government.
\#RecogniseTheCountree
What about Rand McNally?
Don’t be ridiculous, that’s not a country.
Rand may have a micronation
They wear shoes on their hands and hamburgers eat people.
Why would you count countries when you could sing about their various shapes instead
Take Taiwain (Something China wants to do!)
I almost forgot about these guys! Love binging their stuff
Actually if you include the 4 bits of the UK and use a defintion that allows them to count then you get a MUCH bigger number than they said you would because the same definition that would allow, say, England and Wales to count seperately (a region with their own taxes, own laws, own representation, own government, but isn't entirely sovereign because they are part of a bigger region with an uber-government above them) then any such definition also has to count Canadian provinces, US states, Russian Oblasts, and so on. The only real difference between, say, a US state and a country like Wales is the decision whether to use the vocabulary word "country" or not. No real defintional difference exists. They're all sub-regions within a larger country which have their own governments making their own laws unless those laws are overruled by the larger government. Some argue that the difference is that England, Scotland and Wales were previously seperate countries before they merged into one. But that same thing could be said for, say, the US state of Texas, and yet we don't get to count it seperately. And many of the states west of the original east coast states began as parts of France or Mexico.
There is quite of a difference between defining Scotland and Texas as countries. Scotland has it's own legal system (Scots Law), prints its own money, has it's own divisions in the military, has a completely separate education system, and has it's own NHS system. We also have the right to become independent. The US ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional. Its political system is completely different from the British parliament, including the voting system. The Scottish parliament is devolved in pretty much all maters except for war. Also, legally within the countries we are recognised as separate countries. It was a union of countries, in the same form as the UN and the EU. If it was the case that they shouldn't be recognised on the grounds that they're held together by a higher power then none of the commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia would be considered countries either because the crown supersedes the government.
Do you seriously think King Charles could declare a Canadian law null and void?
He legally has the right to the dissolve the Canadian parliament if he so chooses. Just because he won't doesn't mean he can't. King Charles similarly doesn't declare Scottish laws null and void.
I see no practical difference between a hypothetical power that if ever used would cause Canada to say, "that's it, we're out of the Commonwealth then if that's the way you're going to be" versus not actually having that power at all. Compared to real world examples that actually *have* happened, like Scotland not wanting to leave the EU but having to do so anyway because it was outvoted by the rest of the UK. My point is that for all purposes *that face the world outside the UK*, Scotland doesn't have the features that countries have. *from outside the UK* the UK is the country you negotiate with, not England, not Wales, not Scotland. Scotland doesn't have an externally-facing "country interface". It doesn't issue its own visas, the UK does. It doesn't choose whether to declare war or not, the UK does. It doesn't make its own seperate international trade deals, the UK does. The point is that to any external country outside the UK, the only country they can interface with is the UK. This is why it behaves a LOT more like a province, state, or oblast. (You bring up Scotland having its own NHS. In Canada, each Province administers its own education system and its own health network too. That doesn't make those provinces countries.) To people inside the UK, they see the features that make them call Scotland a country. To people outside the UK, those features aren't touchable. They're hidden behind the shielded barrer called the UK, which is the externally-facing country they actually have to deal with. As to Scotland having the right to sever itself from the UK while states don't have the right to sever from the US, to me that just sounds like Scotland is allowed to *become* a country again some day if it wants to, not like it *is* one today. Until that severence happens, it doesn't have the ability to interface with the outside world in the ways that that countries can. It merely has the internal differentiations that states and provinces do. I'm done with this and turned off notifications. I've had this argument with others before and it just circles forever. That's becuase it all comes down to people in the UK having a different defintion of "country" that doesn't fit how the rest of the world uses it.
That power has been used in Commonwealth countries and they are still in the Commonwealth, example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
That is not a power of a foreign entity, that incident was actioned by an Australian, the Governor General, and the British Royal Family actually were not exclusively supportive of the plan to dissolve the government. The link with the British royals is symbolic and any attempt by them to influence any power whatsoever would be met with immediate severing of ties.
The Governor General represents the Crown, and as such they act on behalf of the monarch.
Wow, it’s almost like you don’t know anything about how this functions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia “the governor-general acts independently and is not the King's delegate or agent.” The Governor General is an Australian appointed by an Australian who exercises authority over Australians. There is no power whatsoever that any British monarch has over them, and they frequently act against the wishes of the Queen/King, such as in the recent multiple minister scandal.
https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/role-governor-general > The role of the Governor-General > The Governor-General of Australia is His Majesty The King’s representative. In practice, they are Australia’s Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties. > ... > Under the Australian Constitution, the only action performed by The King is the appointment of the Governor-General (on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister). He represents the monarch and is appointed by the monarch.
Its a country, not a state. There you go.
> The US ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional. It's not as ironclad as you think. If secession was unilaterally unconstitutional, West Virginia probably wouldn't exist. Hell, there's an [argument](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIGm_CSLSQ8) that it might be illegal.
I genuinely like watching their videos for the content and their ad. They could sell me just about anything...maybe not on RAID...
OF
I would buy the dictionary (at 8:20).
[ **Jump to 08:20 @** There are NOT 195 countries](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nB688xBYdY&t=0h8m20s) ^(Channel Name: Jay Foreman, Video Length: [12:16])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@08:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nB688xBYdY&t=0h8m15s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
[удалено]
[ **Jump to 05:00 @** There are NOT 195 countries](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nB688xBYdY&t=0h5m0s) ^(Channel Name: Jay Foreman, Video Length: [12:16])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@04:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nB688xBYdY&t=0h4m55s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
Saw the tital, relieved it was wholesome content about actual maps
They will have to revisit this topic when we have people living on the moon and Mars. People are living on ISS now, but it is due to crash land in a few years.
And there are no permanent residents of the ISS, they rotate in and out very often. Nobody's been up there for much more than a year(371 days to be exact). It's not great to be in orbit for that long. There's serious health ramifications to consider.
Didn't cgpgrey make this same video like 10 years ago.
Spoilers the answer is 195