david goldrock

But one little girl was like “oh, it’s a musical about ME you say” and the character list was all the other girls in the class cast as her body parts, and a story about how her body works.

“Kaylee is nice so she will be the heart. Lily is my kidneys. Sapphire is the lungs.”

what binds all americans together culturally is Big Drink

and you might be saying "is this fat shaming" or "but mayor bloomberg outlawed Big Drink in nyc" or "gays are so annoying about their iced coffee" or some other dumb comment but no open your minds, Big Drink isn't just sugary or caffeinated beverages

every day i see one of you hydration bitches (affectionate) on the train with a water bottle so big a toddler could drown in it. that too is Big Drink. we literally invented a bigger beer can (tall boy) in wisconsin in the 60s in the service of Big Drink

Posted by House of Common Sense to Facebook on May 23, 2026.

So why does "indigenous vs. colonizer" almost always mean Europeans, and almost never Bantu, Turks, Arabs, Slavs, or Han Chinese?

A few reasons, in descending order of how much they actually explain:

1. Recency and documentation. European expansion happened in the era of the printing press, photography, census records, and treaties.

The Bantu expansion left no paperwork.

The Arab conquests are 1,300 years old and mythologized as religious destiny rather than conquest.

When the receipts exist, the case is easier to make, and Europeans left receipts.

2. The winners wrote the framework. Modern human-rights language, postcolonial theory, and the very category of "indigenous peoples" were built in Western universities after WWII, primarily to process European guilt over European empires.

The tool was designed for one job.

Asking it to evaluate the Arab conquest of Egypt or the Turkic conquest of Anatolia is like asking a tax form to diagnose a disease. It wasn't built for that.

3. Christendom is critique-able; other civilizations aren't.

You can write a bestseller attacking Western Christian civilization from inside a Western university and win awards for it.

Try writing the equivalent book about Arab-Islamic conquest from inside Cairo or Istanbul.

The asymmetry isn't about history. It's about which societies tolerate self-criticism and which punish it.

So the critical literature piles up on one side and barely exists on the other.

4. The Soviet inheritance. Cold War-era anti-colonial framing was deliberately shaped by Moscow to delegitimize the West while giving its own empire and its allies' conquests, a pass.

That framework outlived the USSR and still structures a lot of academic and activist vocabulary today.

5. Race makes it legible. European colonizers usually looked different from the colonized. Turkic conquerors of Anatolia, Arab conquerors of the Levant, and Bantu expansionists in Africa generally didn't look dramatically different from the populations they absorbed.

The visual contrast made European empire easier to narrate as racial, and once a story has a clean visual, it travels.

6. And finally, Jews.

The framework's selective application reaches its most absurd point when a people indigenous to a specific land, with continuous presence, language, religion, and archaeological record tying them to it for three thousand years, get labeled "colonial settlers", while the actual seventh-century conquerors who Arabized the region get labeled "indigenous."

At that point the framework isn't describing reality. It's laundering a conclusion.

אודיה פינטו מעצבנת בכוונה

רמת ה-VIP ירדה מאז העונה הקודמת משמעותית, יש פה שני כדורגלנים ושתי משפיעניות

כבר ברבע השעה הראשונה סקצ׳רס פורצים לחדרים שלהם עם מבחר נעליים ובגדים

דברים שלא למדתי