₦airaland Forum

Obiagu1: From your argument, we can talk about amalgamation of Opobo, amalgamation of Edoland, Igboland, Efikland, Hausaland, etc after all they were all added to the British colonial empire.
That defeats your argument. My point remains that none British government territories were either acquired or bought for expansion or conquered for expansion as well. Those territories were none British territories hence were not amalgamated but acquired.

When 2 or more independent British government territories with separate administration and government were merge, it is amalgamation. No one should ever talk about 1914 amalgamation again if 1906 will not be discoursed. We can use your literal definition of amalgamation and go back to Warri, Lagos, Calabar and Opobo "amalgamation" and we will end up with nothing.

1. Well, I don't see how it "defeats my argument." What I said was that the territories were not "acquired" by the Niger Coast Protectorate and were never part of the Niger Coast Protectorate - and in fact they weren't - but were amalgamated with it to form a new protectorate. The other territories were acquired by the British government (when it obtained control of the Royal Niger Company's rights in 1899) which merged them with the NCP to create a new protectorate (Southern Nigeria), which included the other in-between territories that had not been conquered or incorporated in anything British by any treaty with the RNC or NCP. As an example of my point, do you actually think Idah was ever part of the Niger Coast Protectorate? Can you honestly make the claim "Idah was acquired by the Niger Coast Protectorate at some point" knowing how incorrect that is and knowing that the NCP did not stretch very far inland while it existed? That claim (about Idah) is basically one of the claims you're necessarily making by holding to your position about all these territories merely being "acquired" by the NCP. I think I'm basically repeating myself, but hopefully this example should show you what the problem is with saying that the Niger Coast Protectorate acquired territories that there is no record of it actually acquiring while it existed.

For example, can you tell me which of the districts of the Niger Coast Protectorate that were acknowledged as existing in the official annual colonial report for the Niger Coast Protectorate for 1898-1899 that R. Moor sent to the consulate general in Old Calabar would have contained Idah or Onitsha or any of the lands immediately around those places? Was it Old Calabar, Opobo, Bonny, New Calabar, Brass, Benin and Sapele, or Warri? Which of these districts would have contained those other huge stretches of land in the interior? Or did Moor, the commissioner and consul-general of the Niger Coast Protectorate in 1899, not know what the Niger Coast Protectorate actually entailed when he submitted the annual colonial report?

Apart from the fact that you are basically saying that all 9 of the history professors that edited the Historical Dictionary of the British Empire were wrong (it's their "argument" as well, not just mine), you have yet to show how places like Idah or Onitsha were actually acquired by the Niger Coast Protectorate while it existed.

2. Also, the 1898 Niger Committee decided in 1898 that all of the territories that we have been talking about were going to be amalgamated anyway to form one larger colony (Nigeria). As I said, they were all working together - the governor of Lagos (Egerton) was simultaneously the high commissioner of the protectorate of Southern Nigeria, for example. It's just that they decided the order in which the territories should be amalgamated and decided that it could not happen immediately but would have to happen over a longer period of time because they did not yet have the administrative capability (citing health issues and communication/transportation issues) to handle a fully amalgamated colony at the time. So they delayed, and of course, they decided over time to carry out the mergers in a different manner than the "Maritime Province" and "Sudan Province" arrangement that they first proposed. But that the mergers were going to happen was already decided upon by 1898.


3. We can discuss whether it was a historical mistake to add Opobo, Edoland, Igboland, Hausaland, Efikland, or any other land to any other people's land or to any protectorate regardless of whether we use the term amalgamation or not. Anyone can debate on whether certain acquisitions, annexations or amalgamations were historically disastrous for the groups being added and/or for the groups to which they were added. The reason the 1914 amalgamation gets so much attention (and was controversial even back then) is because the cultural and religious divide between the North and South was considered to be much greater than the divide between those different groups in the south or those different groups in the north. Nothing is stopping anybody from starting a topic on the problems caused by or the "historical mistake" of adding Edoland, Yorubaland, Igboland, etc. to any other lands. These are reasonable and valid topics of discussion just as the consequences and significance of the British adding the north to south is a reasonable topic of discussion. But there would never be as much controversy about any other additions or amalgamations as there would be about the 1914 amalgamation because the northern-southern cultural/religious divide is and was considered greater than any other.

Obiagu1: None British "government" or none crown land were acquired not amalgamated. Niger Coast Protectorate final boarder line was drawn in 1900 and no amalgamation with other protectorates had taken place.

Okay, so can you direct me to reliable sources (preferably from back then) which describe the "acquisition" of that huge swath of territory for the Niger Coast Protectorate specifically? I was under the impression that the rights and functions of the RNC were obtained by the British government for a compensation of £850,000, and then their territory was merged ('amalgamated') with the NCP, and then the entire territory was renamed the protectorate of Southern Nigeria.

This gave rise to 3 independent territories just like Goldcoast protectorate, Sierra Leone Protectorate, Kenya Protectorate etc.

I don't know about "independent." From some of what I read in the book Colonial Office and Nigeria, 1898–1914, I got the impression that all of the key players involved in bringing about the amalgamations and in governing the protectorates were all working together.

"Meanwhile, the lucrative Niger Coast Protectorate had been amalgamated with other southern territories under the name of the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria in 1900." - p. 812, Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, Volume 2

Obiagu, what's your problem with the word "amalgamation" being in the same sentence with "1900"? Isn't that what it was?

Obiagu1: You still have not gotten it. No territory that was not under the British Colonial office was amalgamated. None British territories were acquired and added to an already existing Protectorate like Yoruba land to Lagos Colony and Royal Niger to Niger Coast Protectorate or an entirely new protectorate was formed like Protectorate of Northern Nigeria.

Please explain what you're saying a bit more clearly. I don't understand the "None British territories were acquired" part especially.

Are you agreeing with me that the Niger Coast Protectorate was limited in extent before 1900, before becoming much larger? If you agree about that with me, then why do you disagree with the use of the word "amalgamated" to describe the process by which it became much larger and was renamed in 1900?

Obiagu, the issue here seems to be the extent of the Niger Coast Protectorate vs. the extent of the protectorate of Southern Nigeria. I seem unable so far to convince you that the Niger Coast Protectorate was originally rather limited in extent before the 1900 amalgamation so here is yet another source:

'Of the coast-line of Nigeria, about one-half only was within the Royal Niger Company's jurisdiction. The remaining half — at the chief ports of which treaties had been made by Consul Hewitt in 1884 for the Imperial Government — was administered by Imperial authorities, first as the "Oil Rivers Protectorate," and after May 1893 as the "Niger Coast Protectorate." ' - Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th edition, 1902

'The sovereign rights of the Niger Company were transferred to the British Crown on 1st January 1900, and the whole territory, including the coast protectorate, became the protectorate of Nigeria, divided into a northern and southern government, each of which is administered by a high commissioner appointed by the Colonial Office.' - Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th edition, 1902

'Since its transfer to the British Crown Nigeria has been divided for administrative purposes into the two governments of northern and southern Nigeria, the dividing line running east and west in about 7° 10' N., crossing the Niger a little above Idda. Southern Nigeria thus includes an area many times larger than the old Niger Coast Protectorate.' - Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th edition, 1902

Obiagu1: You sound too dumb. I asked you then to provide a link that said territories in Southern Nigeria were amalgamated but you provided none, yet you keep talking crap trying to "define" amalgamation.

1. Where did you ask me previously to "provide a link" which said that the territories in Southern Nigeria were amalgamated? The thread is here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1029770/yorubas-strangers-nigeria/1

2. I provided a link anyway which said the creation of the Southern Nigeria Protectorate was the result of an amalgamation:

https://www.nairaland.com/1029770/yorubas-strangers-nigeria/2#11962767

After which, you said there was nothing more to argue about.

3. "The British government withdrew the charter from the Royal Niger Company and brought the Niger Coast Protectorate and all the company's territories as far as Idah together and amalgamated them into the new protectorate of Southern Nigeria. With the amalgamation, majority of the Igbo officially came under British colonial rule." - Gloria Chuku, Igbo Women and Economic Transformation in Southeastern Nigeria, 1900-1960, p. 85

A few parts of Igboland were already added to the NCP before the 1900 amalgamation (such as Aboh), just as Benin and some other places in Southern Nigeria were, but a lot were not. That's the point. I don't know why you seem to have particular trouble with using the word "amalgamation" to describe what happened in 1900.

We have gone through this before. What I tried to get you to understand, and what you still don't seem to understand, is that the Niger Coast Protectorate was amalgamated with some other territories to form the protectorate of Southern Nigeria in 1900. I don't understand why this is such a difficult thing to understand. I provided you with one source before which rightly described it as an amalgamation, which it was, but you insist on claiming that these territories were "acquired" as if they were ever part of the Niger Coast Protectorate. They were not. That's the point.

Sam Scott, you should probably contact the author of the article I referenced above (Nevadomsky) or contact the author of the following article (Plankensteiner):

http://www.galerie-herrmann.com/arts/art6/Afrika_Szene/Barbara_Plankensteiner_Bilder/Copy_Fake.pdf

Based on articles from them that I've read, they would probably know who to contact to prove whether the art is genuine or not if they can't determine that themselves.

I am personally of the opinion, as a non-expert, that those are not authentic and not from Benin, although I could be wrong.

If this question isn't too nosy, why were your grandparents living in Nigeria in the 1940s?

Obiagu, the point Negro Ntns is getting at, which you seem to have missed, is that other territories were amalgamated with the Oil Rivers/Niger Coast Protectorate, before it was renamed the protectorate of Southern Nigeria. Some of these were in Igboland, others were in other parts of southern Nigeria. And the RNC chartered territories in the south were merged ('amalgamated') with the Niger Coast Protectorate before it was renamed the Southern Nigeria protectorate. For example, Asaba and Onitsha were not really part of the Niger Coast Protectorate before the 1900 amalgamation.

My post in this thread should not have been hidden by the 'pyguru' bot:

https://www.nairaland.com/1089090/group-demonstrates-lagos-biafra-sovereignty/12

It should be unhidden.

whitecat007: ibo logic at work again. Ask your self the following questions

Which part of Yorubaland is Benin spoken? But Some speak Edo Yoruba

Where in Yoruba do they bear Benin names? But Benin bear Yoruba names

It's called Ondo state. For example, Babatunde Osazuwa (a Yoruba geophysicist from that state) has that Edo last name. Even in the 1930s there were still (non-assimilated) Bini people at Akure.

Do Yoruba and Benin speak the same language? The answer is no

If there was a colonial master between the two, then you should know that Yoruba was the colonial master.

I believe the real Ibini people that were part of Yoruba are the Itsekiri and Ugbodu people, Itsekiri language is word for word same as my Ijebu dialect.
If you take a close look at Yoruba/Benin history, there is no way it's the modern day Benin we share the ancient history with. There were real Ibini people on the land that is now called Benin, reason our Oduduwa sent his son to rule over them.

I believe that when our own Oduduwa sent one of his children to go and rule over Ibini the people had just been pushed out or something, but all this story has nothing to do with the people who are called Benin today

"Ibini" or "Ubini" is just one particular exonym, possibly but not necessarily of Itsekiri origin. The name of the people is and has been Edo, which the Yoruba called Ado in the past. The world might call Deutschland by the name "Germany" or "Allemagne/Alemán" or "Niemcy" but that doesn't change the fact that the real name is Deutschland. The same applies here. There are other exonyms applied to the Edo people anyway.

@ the rest of your post, it seems like you're falling for the bait I don't think that issue has much to do with the topic.

Congrats to him.

@ the topic, feminism is the belief that women are equal to men and a feminist is someone who believes in equal treatment and rights for women (land ownership rights, inheritance rights, rights to the same freedoms and privileges under the law, etc.). Taking that into account, most men and women today in Western countries and in some non-Western countries are technically feminists, although perhaps some men are only grudgingly feminists because they don't want to sound like neanderthals (I don't include myself in this group, but it's not possible for me to give an objective assessment of myself, so I could be wrong.)

In Africa, there were probably few societies where women were considered equal in status/worth/rights to men prior to colonization, just as there were few societies where women were really considered equals in the Western world or Asia until around the 1960s/70s. One's best bet to find such equality in Africa before recent decades would probably be to look at the few polyandrous or matriarchal societies throughout Africa. The next best thing as far as having some semblance of gender equality would be societies that were/are patriarchal but which practiced matrilineal descent and where women held important positions, like the societies of the Akan people. There is also Kush, where the kingdom was ruled by queens outright at certain periods of time. Some of these warrior queens, called Kandakes, possibly could have seen to it that the disparity in status between men and women was not so great, although it doesn't necessarily follow that there would have been equality between men and women simply because the highest political position was held by a woman. The same can probably be said of Queen Nzinga of the Ndongo and other societies in Africa where women ruled.

@ shymmex


I think you mean Queen Mother Moore, not Queen Mother Mary.

shiyuyiu: Dude. They're totally separate nations, peoples and cultures. Don't give me some wiki link because I've read about this in detail from better sources.

^^^

Is this a bot? Or are you a real person? I was wondering why he copied half of my earlier response word for word, but then I looked through shiyuyiu's post history and some of his/her posting doesn't make any sense.

Is IBB his father?

Anyway, hopefully he beats the cancer.

kadman: Another German friend who is a keen cyclist has been following the Lance Armstong drug scandal just for the fun of it.

lol

wiegraf: I played just about every squaresoft game I got my hands on too. sqeenix? Not so much.

Same here basically. In fact, the only reason I even know what an emulator or a rom is today is because of how I got into that stuff some years back (like 6 or 7 years ago) in order to play old rpgs (mostly Squaresoft) that were "before my time" (before the time of classic PS1 and PS2 rpgs, many/most of which were also made by Squaresoft) and which I'd never played or in some cases never heard of but which others kept swearing were classic. FF6, Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Star Ocean, Seiken Densetsu 3, Tales of Phantasia, Terranigma, FF5, FF4 etc. FF6 alone was worth it and those other games were the icing on the cake. I have some good memories from back then, and of course, I got to play other classic/great stuff besides just the RPGs I originally intended to play. . .those were the days - back when it seemed like I had endless amounts of free time.

Tactics was way ahead of its time considering plot. Wiegraf for instance was supposed to be one of the bad guys, from my pov he wasn't, at all. In fact, he was rather noble, dealing with him was just one of those things that needed to be done. (After slaying him, I now wear his name so he is not forgotten, ggaarrr.) That wasn't so regular with games of the time, except for say ff vii upwards, chrono cross, xenogears etc. Seriously, back in the day everything square touched was classy.
Just look at wiegraf's quotes

Interesting. Now I'm really thinking I missed out on one of square's best games. And I looked up some more of Wiegraf's quotes and he comes off as pretty unique for an adversary.

he had nothing on the shin megami tensei series though, which had yah'weh as the bad guy, complete with a name which must not be said..

That's a pretty blatant anti Christian theme. Surprising that a video game would be so bold, but then again, Japan isn't rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview, so criticizing Yahweh wouldn't offend too many people.

This reminds me a little of a game that came out recently this year (I only started playing it recently) called Asura's Wrath, where the main adversary (at least at first) is a powerful, ruthless thunderbolt wielding demi-god called "Deus" (the Latin word for God) who has a huge number of humans killed in order to amplify his own power with their energy/souls. But he's supposedly not truly a villain in the game because the actions he and his co-conspirators take are for a supposedly greater overall good. The "anti-God" theme of the game is also less obvious because the "God" of the game is more like Zeus than YHWH. The game isn't really an RPG, but more action-adventurish like the God of War and Ninja Gaiden games, but it seems to have heavy manga/anime influences. If they had made the main adversary resemble YHWH rather than Zeus (who has far fewer followers today) or said he was YHWH explicitly the game probably wouldn't have been released in the West either.

Ikengawo: You can say it's sad that there's 1 major car accident in Nigeria a week, but there's also 170 million plus people.

If there were only 1 major car accident in Nigeria a week, then Nigerians would either be by far the best drivers in the world, or be a large country with the fewest cars.

Now that last episode (episode 3) really delivered, especially the ending with the surprise massacre and the floating heads. I didn't originally realize that the top head at the very end belonged to the military guy that the Governor had visited and spoke with in their "hospital" as he lay wounded in bed. Then it suddenly hit me and I was shocked. Great episode.

*Kails*:
Guys you have to check this out.

What do you think about this? Very interesting stuff.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY-UET-UA2g

At 4:41 he makes a comparison between the headdress on the sculpture of the Ooni of Ife (which he incorrectly refers to as being a piece of art from Benin) and the headdress of that Pharaoh. While it's not impossible for there to have been some Egyptian influence, I think the two are actually very distinct from one another in appearance.

As for the comparison between the warriors (or Obas) in some bronzes that have the mitre shaped hats and the actual mitres of the Catholic popes that he makes at 5:40, while I once again think it's not impossible for there to have been some Catholic/Christian influence, it's more likely to be a coincidence in appearance as sometimes happens.

Now the current shape of the papal mitres is from the 16th century (1500s):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Mitre_evolution.gif

Braun, Joseph. "Mitre." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.

"Up to then the mitre had been somewhat broader than high when folded together, but from this period on it began, slowly indeed, but steadily, to increase in height until, in the seventeenth century, it grew into an actual tower. Another change, which, however, did not appear until the fifteenth century, was that the sides were no longer made vertical, but diagonal. In the sixteenth century it began to be customary to curve, more or less decidedly, the diagonal sides of the horns."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10404a.htm

However, the curve on those hats seen in Benin bronzes is not always an outward curve and the top part does not always have the same shape the papal mitres did nor is the shape always the same in all the Benin art:

http://www.artelista.com/prints/scala/big/7/5/5/B014394m.jpg

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/4212/beninwarriorwarchiefork.jpg

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6316/abeninwarriorinawardres.jpg

http://www.britishmuseum.org/collectionimages/AN00123/AN00123941_001_l.jpg

One of the biggest differences is that the hats that the figures in the Benin art wear are all actually closed, while a papal mitre is supposed to be open:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/K%C3%B6niginmutter_mit_Gefolge_%28Bini%29.JPG

^^^
That piece depicting an Iyoba (a queen mother) in the back center, surrounded by soldiers and officials, held in a museum in Germany, shows that the hats were quite distinct from papal mitres.

It seems like this was a hat style that was used in Benin at some point by certain military commanders or kings and that there were variations on it, but it seems more like a coincidence, especially considering that the original papal mitres were smaller (until the 17th century) and more straight compared to the hats in the art. Anyway, sometimes these kinds of coincidences happen - for example, the "mitre" of the priests of Dagon (a certain deity) in ancient Babylon resemble the papal mitres as well, but we know that the two are not connected and that the current shape of the papal mitre is just a result of stylistic evolution from a hat with Roman origins.

edit: I see that my scores have been received.

Question for Katsumoto, if the debate moderators allow it (I know the time for questions from judges is over):

Katsumoto: Third, it is no coincidence that after Ironsi centralized the government in 1966, revenues from rubber, cocoa, palm oil, cotton, groundnut, etc started to go down. Administrators at the center became lazier and more corrupt.

Could you elaborate on why this isn't a coincidence? Isn't it possible that economic trends just changed around that time and that it was in fact a coincidence that revenues from those resources started to go down?



By the way, great debate so far. Kudos to both debaters.

I should definitely be available this Saturday, as long as nothing comes up. I look forward to reading each debater's arguments.

phreakabit: I would say Kendrick Lamar, but then you'd think I am hopping on the bandwagon even though I have been following dude since he was known as K.dot. Anyway lets get straight to the list:

BLU (of Blu & Exile)

Jay Electronica

XV (Geek stuff mostly)

Kendrick Lamar

Clear Soul Forces

Skyzoo

To name a few. . . .

I don't think these 6 names measure up to any group of 6 of the names I listed from the old school era. Even Kendrick Lamar and Jay Electronica, I would only consider better than a few of the groups/people I mentioned: Souls of Mischief, Black Sheep and Digable Planets. But all the rest are better than any of these new acts. I also forgot to mention Black Moon, Organized Konfusion, Jeru, O.C., Masta Ace, and Redman. It seems clear (to me at least) that the kind of talent and quality that rap had in the late 80s through the 90s doesn't seem to be around today.

pazienza: Apart from rubbish revisionist articles written by yoruba media, there is no evidence of the so called biafra atrocities in the mid west. Where as the atrocities of the nigerian army on biafran civilians are well documented.

Undoubtedly, there were atrocities committed in the Midwest by Biafran soldiers. That is a fact. The problem is that the findings of the tribunal (chaired by an Ika man) into atrocities were suppressed so that very real ethnic tensions and wounds could heal, but if you've ever read any of those yahoo usergroup arguments over this issue, you would know that some of the names of and specifics about those orphaned by Biafran killings at Urhonigbe and Ugo have already come out. Anyway, the truth can't be hidden forever. Eventually, the whole thing will come out in detail and a lot of people deluding themselves will have to come to terms with reality.

phreakabit: Bollocks! Hip hop is still Hip hop! You'd be surprised to know that some of these new-age rappers are way better than the pioneers. Yes the game is messed up right now, but it all depends on what you choose to listen to.

Like who?

The old school had Rakim, Kool G Rap, LL Cool J, Big Daddy Kane, The D.O.C., Slick Rick, KRS-One, A Tribe Called Quest, Paris, The Pharcyde, Poor Righteous Teachers, Ice Cube, Wu-Tang, EPMD, Pete Rock & CL Smooth, Souls of Mischief, Craig G, Black Sheep, Naughty by Nature, Digable Planets, etc. . . .so do you think that there's this much talent around right now? Name names.

Tell us more about the Gwari.

Also, what's the origin of the other name (Gwari) for the Gbagyi people? Is it just a mispronunciation?

kikuyu1: Honestly I've never been a fan. I think its juvenile at best and tedious. How many times can a thug mumble about bling and killing,c'mon!However,I've been directed to Prof.Griff's videos explaining how its stars are knowingly being used to spread negativity and subtle messages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkosdfmIRE&feature=related
Particularly to those US based nairalanders,do you agree with the basic contention? Personally I do.

Get a drink, pull up a chair, listen to "Good kid, maad city" for about an an hour, stare off into space, think about life, and just mellow out for a little bit. . .you might start to appreciate/enjoy these tedious rappers and some of their juvenile stuff a little more. . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpugK0RpEaU&feature=related

I don't think every rap song has to be like "Follow the Leader" (Rakim), "Ordo Abchao," (Ras Kass) "Thieves In The Night" (Black Star) or "Four Women" (Reflection Eternal) etc. In fact, if all rap was like that, it might be a bad thing or be too boring and a lot of great sounding tracks about less serious stuff or great sounding "bragging" songs wouldn't have been made. Sometimes, actually maybe a lot of the time, people just want to hear music that's entertaining (that they can relax or party to or just enjoy for its sound) or engaging without hearing political and social speeches underneath or on the surface of every song at the expense of enjoying the song. The truth is that what makes music great isn't usually what is being said or sung or rapped (although that can help) because no message or speech, no matter how great and informative or enlightening, can make a shitty song with a shitty melody, beat, etc. or shitty singing and/or rapping, sound good. The main thing is how good the music actually sounds. For example, Lupe Fiasco put out a song called "B1tch Bad" recently (which also touches on the apparent negative effects of some rap music), and as much as I like his music, I think that song is one of many "conscious" songs from rappers that you can only listen to a few times in a short time frame before you're sick of it - you've absorbed the message, but the music itself (rapping and the beat and the hook) doesn't sound that great or amazing, so after you quickly get tired of it, you have to wait a long time to "rediscover" it again months or years later when you can tolerate it, and then you can start to appreciate it again.

Even if the message is there and the thought provoking commentary is there, when the actual sound of the music is only average at best or is just bad, people aren't going to listen to it for long before moving on...They might hear it once or twice and say "that's interesting" but they aren't going to buy that album or watch a whole concert of that material when they could just go pick up a book somewhere if they are so serious about getting knowledge and enlightenment. Historically, music has been used in protests, mourning, to express self-pity, to get the attention of the opposite sex, to rally a group, and for important celebrations, but I doubt it has much functional significance beyond those things - you don't use it as a teaching tool, you enjoy it. That's the main thing - if the music doesn't meet that one basic requirement of just sounding good and being very enjoyable sound-wise, it's not going to be listened to for long, and even if a song is ignorant and juvenile it's still going to be listened to for a long time and/or get a lot of attention and following if it sounds good and provides the necessary enjoyment. Music is meant to be felt, not studied like a textbook.

On the other hand, the same rapper (Lupe Fiasco) has another song, "Gold Watch," that's much less serious, and, if you like, is a "tedious" repetition of materialism and talk about bling and stereotypical stuff, but I can replay that song all the time, almost anytime, because the actual sound (quality, not content) of the song is great and addictive. And of course, he does have other songs that have progressive messages (good content) and also actually sound great, like "Hurt Me Soul" or "Around My Way" and "Lamborghini Angels." But the point is, it's about the sound more than it is about the content. If the public - or the people in the music industry themselves - want the industry to go conscious/progressive/positive, then all the conscious musicians, rappers, singers, etc. have to somehow make much better sounding music than the artists that don't care one way or another about the message but only care about the money.

The second episode was beastly and the previews for the third episode are intriguing. Season's looking good so far.

What a prick. If anyone asked Trump to do something as simple as showing his bald head and temporarily stopping the massive comb over, he would scamper away from the challenge like a coward.