To celebrate the 10th anniversary of Wikipedia, I decided to take a trip and find out what Wikipedia can teach me. I used the random page button to start "my journey".
My first page was on
Hiram T. Smith who is described as the only true casualty of the Aroostook War, with 37 other deaths being attributed to natural causes. There is no official death given however wikipedia lists six different theories.
The next logical step is to find out about the
Aroostook War, which Wikipedia kindly informs me is sometimes nicknamed "The Pork and Beans War". The war was between the newly formed USA and Britain and its interests in what is now Canada. It was essentially a border dispute, which called in William I from the Netherlands to arbitrate. Despite the fact that no fighting actually occurred the US congress appropriated $10 million and fifty thousand men should any foreign army enter US territory.
William I of the Netherlands seemed the most interesting link on offer so I duly took it. He was forced into exile when Napoleonic forces invaded in 1795. He returned in 1799 with a joint UK/ Russian army to liberate the Netherlands. However he was forced to leave after a new treaty was signed. He was given some territories in Germany but was forced to leave there after Napoleon once again invaded. In 1913 he finally managed to return and ruled the Netherlands during the Belgian Uprising and several constitutional changes. He abdicated in 1840. He was the 648th Knight of the Order of the Garter and the 876th Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece.
The most interesting sounding was
The Order of the Golden Fleece (although I'm sure the Belgian Uprising has its charms but you know... Belgium). This is a Spanish Order set up by Duke Phillip III of Burgandy in 1430 to celebrate his marriage to some bird in Portugal (Isabella of Aviz, I know Wikipedia doesn't say that I'm paraphrasing). In case you were wondering if this is all pomp, Wikipedia handily quotes Guillaume Machaut as saying:
"Not for amusement nor for recreation,
But for the purpose that praise shall be given to God,
In the very first place,
And to the good, glory and high renown."
So yeah... Apparent controversy involving the Order include awarding it to Napoleon and when Isabella II of Spain was challenged as to her right to issue it (her being a queen not a king and all). The current leader is the King of Spain (Juan Carlos I) and our dear old Elizabeth II is also a member.
Now here I had a dilemma should I pick Napoleon as he is cropping up a fair bit? Should I pick the Portuguese bird? So I clicked on both Napoleons was far too long to bother reading (it being 2:22, exactly as I looked, and all), while Isabella of Aviz turned out to be not that much of a bird. I thus took a third option and descended into Greek Mythology... (Guillaume Machaut was also on the cards.)
The
Golden Fleece is figured in the tale of Jason and the Argonauts and is retrieved from its sanctuary by Jason to take the throne from Pelias. The fleece is supposed to originate from a golden haired winged ram, which was the offspring of the Gods; Poseidon and Themisto. The Ram saved two children (of Gods) Phrixus and Helle from being sacrificed and carried them over the water to safety. Helle unfortunately fell and drowned. Phrixus sacrificed the ram to Poseidon and hung the Golden Fleece on an oak in a sacred grove guarded by a Dragon (as you do). Seventeen different interpretations of what it symbolises are listed by Wikipedia.
My next choice could now take me down difficult roads. The word that sprung out at me was nymph and although I can write and publish whatever I want, when I set up the blog I didn't click "Yes" to adult content. Now I could go change this but I would prefer our blog remained roughly PG 13 despite our frequent usage of more colourful aspects of the English language (kids know these words already). So I instead elected to pick Dragon, cool huh.
Dragons can be divided into two categories according to Wikipedia; Chinese (and other Asian) and European Dragons both of which have very different looks and origins. In Europe it is interesting to note that Dragons are often seen living in caves and lairs despite the fact they are winged... confusing? Wikipedia says this denotes association with an earth element.
Chinese dragons are usually considered benevolent and can change into human form! Wait what? Shit that makes Dragons much scarier, no wonder they had to make them (mostly) benevolent. Their origin in our cultures is often attributed to fossilized remains of Dinosaurs and the like. Creationists however maintain that these dinosaurs are actually dinosaurs that died out sometime after the last ice age.
Obviously a chance to amuse myself with crackpot creationist views is not an opportunity I will pass up lightly.
Creationist Perspectives on Dinosaurs redirects me to
Young Earth creationism. Yay! To start I
had to quote this wonderful snippet from the Attitudes towards Science section:
"Young Earth creationism is normally characterized as opposing evolution, though it also opposes many claims and theories in the fields of physics and chemistry (especially absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology, dendrochronology and any other fields of science that have developed theories or made claims incompatible with the Young Earth version of world history."
Good going guys! Creationists clearly are a force to be reckoned with as there was a decline in the popularity of this theory (actually strike that "way of thinking" fits better as there is no evidence that is scientifically credible to back them up). This movement if you're unfamiliar with it actually believes the world started roughly 5-10 thousand years ago. You know ignoring such things as everything in
this article and anything before then. They didn't exist there was nothing. This "theory" is based on the literal translation of the bible, in particular Genesis and the creating of the earth in seven days.
Some other fun theories for you to try and guess how someone can actually believe this (in no order of favourites):
1. Before the fall of man, no animals were carnivores and none of them died.
2. Many believe Dinosaurs, marine reptiles and other prehistoric life were killed in the deluge (clever word for Noah's flood (you know when all merciful God kills everyone and everything on the planet because he's insecure). Some even believe that some Dinosaurs survived and can still be found today.
3. The deluge actually occurred... How do you think the Grand Canyon was formed?
4. No evolution. Period. Wait if there were only two people in the beginning how did races come about? Oh shi...
5. Noah actually lived to be 900!
Scary figure now
"As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 36% of US adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.", 14% believed that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." and 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.""
And unfortunately on that soul crushing, losing faith in humanity point, it is 3:15am and I refuse to write/read much more. I would like to apologise for a lack of updates. We are shit and Sam has just started uni. so he is drunk and I'm a third year so I drink to hide the stress and work.
I do have plans for this blog, including regular updates and an expansion of our universe, but... it's on the backburner probably unfortunately till the end of this academic year. Dissertation, Field trips and exams get in the way of my implementing said plans.
Peace out. Jack.
Edit: When I mentioned the wrong path featuring nymphs I went back and tested an alternate route and ended up at masturbation via hypersexuality and clitoridectomies. Told you it was a wise choice (well I didn't but I am now).
Also although I actually spell checked this post and reread it (for a change) I probably missed something so sorry about that. Also our tags now include; 1 am, 2 am and 3am! Not too shabby.
P.S. Sam if you're reading you're last blog post was "Monday, 23 November 2009" I just checked. Stop nagging me to update the blog when you never do! I've done the last eight.
