I solely believe that this is the best explanation of these topics. Because The Greatest P K Nayar himself is describing these concepts. The only one we Indian have on and about Cultural Studies.
What a way you used of making me understand these confusing terms is exceedingly remarkable. At first, I was perplexed with these terms and this visual wiped my all doubts out. It is fabulous! Now, I would like to request the Channel to make a video on "Organic Intellectual" by Pramod K. Nayar sir. Thank you!
We also need to remember that Marx wrote of 1) worldviews 1A) in general,,ideas about society?in specific..@ accurate ideas about societies that are A) partly false 2B) partly accurate 2) ideology version---" 1B)
How does this explain a poor man being honest? E.g. finding a lost money bag and returning it to the owner. Don't 'values' in a 'culture' matter? And don't value go deeper than mere cultural norms imposed from outside?
Gwiz so theres this new catchphrase going around about "colourism' and of course its rebranded old news, but even so, lets press this using the case of lil kim. If we do we might conclude the victims of colourism indulge in the same victimhood politics as the LGBT brigade 💪🏻 Lil Kim for example "confessed" that she started bleaching because black men did not want her and openly expressed their preference for lighter skinned women. Leaving aside female sexual selection pressure and its inherent unquestioned entitlements, what is she really saying? 🤔 Keeping in mind that the highest power is that which can say "no" she is essentially saying she had less objects upon which to exert her power. She had a smaller pool of men to reject. She had less men to lead on, manipulate, insult, confuse, deceive and belittle. She ultimately willed to be in a better pisition to assume and practice her prerogative ; her female duty to degrade and deny men, and yet, it is woman who need protecting 🙈 If we cease femsplaining and turn to mansplaining we unearth a series of unique or additional insights, for example, the idea that colourism isnt racial but corporate. Men arent as bothered by "colourism" as its just another brand of the many ways in which we are called igly eveeyday. Women however take exception as it undermines their pretences to being gods. For a man to be able to say "no" to them means they cease being women; whilst he becomes one. We as a people have problems all across the board so why would women focus exclusively on this particular aspect of our sickness whilst ignoring and neglecting others. Its as if they treat our pathologies as they do men. If we do dissimilar and see it as an issue of branding we can suggest that the issue is with who gets to define worth, and what trend will be in vogue. Theyre upset that their dashion is out of style but want everyone to buy into their branding. But lets pretend this logic isnt true and presume this claim of colourism has some merit. Let's jump ahead to a future place where darker skinned women are celebrated and cherished, and call it nigtopia. In nigtopia our people still have no control over their education, housing, mass communication, employment, means of production, continent or global image, but the darker skinned women feel real good. Im curious; what problem will this solve? 😐 It brings me back to apartheid azania where the white elite classified the japanese - or was it the chinese - as honorary whites. Under no circumstances would it have made sense to bicker amongst themselves about their designations, unless they were in collusion with the existing antiblack power equation , which most these anti "colourism" claimants are. They arent seeking liberation, but containment. They want to be oppressed peacefully If these people were deeply upset ablut colourism it is unlikely they would be the same ones to mock african features such as complexion and hair and yet they're often the very ones referencing hair as picky, niggerish and nappy, whilst claiming mixed/diluted heritage as pretty or good hair. How can people claim to be against the source of their values and the system defining how they see the world? They arent; they want to refine the system not eradicate it because they remain invested and are the reason it perpetuates. Language, Neely Fuller and other long explained, structures how we see the world. It is as if what we see is ordered by what we think, which is determined by the tools used and programming our thinking. If however we fail to challenge concepts of "fairness" that essentially equate whiteness with purity and right, it is a battle lost prior to a pistol being fired. We cannot think like them and still profess/pretend to be against then. It doesnt make sense. +447939642873 Omalone11@gmail.com
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
I solely believe that this is the best explanation of these topics. Because The Greatest P K Nayar himself is describing these concepts. The only one we Indian have on and about Cultural Studies.
Your explanation is quite clear,clears the concept. thanks sir.
There are a dearth of good lectures on culture studies. Your lectures are simple and remarkable..
Well done, Sir. Congratulations.
Excellent video. Thank you.
Sir I studied ur Contemporary Literary and Cultural Theory book and history of english literature is matchless book.
A soulful experience to listen to this amazing and simple explanation ❤️🙏 Please make videos on structuralist post-structuralist studies as well 🙏
Thank you sir 🙂
Your lecture clear my all doubts....
This lecture series is better than a Harvard lecture, more true
In Canadian universities conventions esp UBC more is focused on difficult terms rather than clarity
Thank you. It was very nicely elaborated.
Clear explanation sir. Thank you!
Simply fabulous in very simple and digestible language.
Thank you, Professor.
Very interesting and explained so well
The best ever!!!
Thanks sir... You explained it very well and simply
such a wonderful explanation
Best explanation 🌹✨
Thank you very much . It is very helpful.
Like soccer/football, it's to keep the male population fit.
Good job Sir!
What a way you used of making me understand these confusing terms is exceedingly remarkable. At first, I was perplexed with these terms and this visual wiped my all doubts out. It is fabulous!
Now, I would like to request the Channel to make a video on "Organic Intellectual" by Pramod K. Nayar sir.
Thank you!
You can also read about Antonio Gramsci to have more idea about the Organic intellectual.
very well said. thank you
We also need to remember that Marx wrote of
1) worldviews
1A) in general,,ideas about society?in specific..@ accurate ideas about societies that are
A) partly false
2B) partly accurate
2) ideology version---"
1B)
“Ideas have a material foundation”. Interesting
Truly a moment that caught my 🧠 too haha.
very good explanation
A great thanx to Vidya mitra
where can i get a ppt for this?
Excellent sir.... Could you plz explain the alternate hegemony...
?
Thankyousir
Nice lecturing
Lecture
Promode k Nayar sir ....
Thanks
How does this explain a poor man being honest?
E.g. finding a lost money bag and returning it to the owner.
Don't 'values' in a 'culture' matter?
And don't value go deeper than mere cultural norms imposed from outside?
Gwiz so theres this new catchphrase going around about "colourism' and of course its rebranded old news, but even so, lets press this using the case of lil kim. If we do we might conclude the victims of colourism indulge in the same victimhood politics as the LGBT brigade 💪🏻
Lil Kim for example "confessed" that she started bleaching because black men did not want her and openly expressed their preference for lighter skinned women. Leaving aside female sexual selection pressure and its inherent unquestioned entitlements, what is she really saying? 🤔
Keeping in mind that the highest power is that which can say "no" she is essentially saying she had less objects upon which to exert her power. She had a smaller pool of men to reject. She had less men to lead on, manipulate, insult, confuse, deceive and belittle. She ultimately willed to be in a better pisition to assume and practice her prerogative ; her female duty to degrade and deny men, and yet, it is woman who need protecting 🙈
If we cease femsplaining and turn to mansplaining we unearth a series of unique or additional insights, for example, the idea that colourism isnt racial but corporate. Men arent as bothered by "colourism" as its just another brand of the many ways in which we are called igly eveeyday. Women however take exception as it undermines their pretences to being gods. For a man to be able to say "no" to them means they cease being women; whilst he becomes one.
We as a people have problems all across the board so why would women focus exclusively on this particular aspect of our sickness whilst ignoring and neglecting others. Its as if they treat our pathologies as they do men. If we do dissimilar and see it as an issue of branding we can suggest that the issue is with who gets to define worth, and what trend will be in vogue. Theyre upset that their dashion is out of style but want everyone to buy into their branding.
But lets pretend this logic isnt true and presume this claim of colourism has some merit. Let's jump ahead to a future place where darker skinned women are celebrated and cherished, and call it nigtopia. In nigtopia our people still have no control over their education, housing, mass communication, employment, means of production, continent or global image, but the darker skinned women feel real good. Im curious; what problem will this solve? 😐
It brings me back to apartheid azania where the white elite classified the japanese - or was it the chinese - as honorary whites. Under no circumstances would it have made sense to bicker amongst themselves about their designations, unless they were in collusion with the existing antiblack power equation , which most these anti "colourism" claimants are. They arent seeking liberation, but containment. They want to be oppressed peacefully
If these people were deeply upset ablut colourism it is unlikely they would be the same ones to mock african features such as complexion and hair and yet they're often the very ones referencing hair as picky, niggerish and nappy, whilst claiming mixed/diluted heritage as pretty or good hair. How can people claim to be against the source of their values and the system defining how they see the world? They arent; they want to refine the system not eradicate it because they remain invested and are the reason it perpetuates.
Language, Neely Fuller and other long explained, structures how we see the world. It is as if what we see is ordered by what we think, which is determined by the tools used and programming our thinking. If however we fail to challenge concepts of "fairness" that essentially equate whiteness with purity and right, it is a battle lost prior to a pistol being fired. We cannot think like them and still profess/pretend to be against then. It doesnt make sense.
+447939642873
Omalone11@gmail.com
that's so woke