Kamenfazl.

Not occupation or political dominance, just a fair merge.

In the past century.

There are some sources posting some misleading information about the trade giving the impression that it was slave based. The trade being participated by majority Muslim peoples, servants/slaves were involved. Slaves were probably sold but there is no evidence of that. There is a tendency of comparing the trade with that of transatlantic. The East African tribes never attacked and sold each other as slaves. The thing is that East Africa and the Arab Peninsular was like one big community were there was free movement of people to and fro (that is why in places like Oman Swahili was/is spoken/understood to Madagascar even if its Bantu, as the language of the trade). There were rich/ruling family that in turn had 'servants' that were not paid thus making them slaves(as its now known as). The slave could be either of African origin or Middle Eastern. Other than that the trade was largely commodity based and can in no way be compared to that of the trans-Atlantic. The Chinese/Far East were very minimally involved in the trade and didn't have a slave institution and so are the Indian and that's why there are no major black populations in these regions and talking of African slaves in far east is a lie. Slavery was largely limited to Muslim societies. I know this because I come from a country that was involved in the trade and we are taught about it. The degrading of blacks is a very recent and I think the people twisting the history are is part of this.

Specifically, is there anything that Mongolians detasted from it? I would really prefer a Mongolian to answer but anyone else still can.

The Americans don't know anything about East Africa. They went to Somalia to fight Al- shabaab but got defeated or didn't complish their objectives. Kenya was sucessfull on its objectives in Somalia. What else do they want to do? Set a base?

What if India and China were to merge as one political entity but India still being semi-autonomous (if they wished), wouldn't the Indian region skyrocket? I mean wouldn't it be better economic-wise even than the China region. Not saying anyone is better than anyone, just saying wouldn't such a situation have such an effect. Thats what I see. I think given certain occurences in Indian history is what ills India and China being diff (and lucky), merging would auto-correct the 'ills' and things would be diff completely. Am almost sure of this. What do you think?

Well the way I know it is that D' banj is a Nigerian artist, a good one at that. The thing is that many Romanians are commenting on the song(well Ok) but they are the majority and they write things like 'ROMANIA' all the time and some even go like 'Romania thumbs up'. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy in the vid that comes in and dances is Romanian. So other than that whats the special relation of the song with Romania? Confussed a little.

There is no justification whatsoever for colonisation. It was bad and its effects are still directly being felt by the affected countries. Now, I have previously seen people [especially Britons] who try to justify this EVIL with very baseless arguments. First, the world would have independently adapted to any necessary changes AT THEIR WILL e.g, did China have to colosise the world for it to use fireworks [sulphur], printing e.t.c. mmh? If I discover something does my country have to force it onto other people for them to use it LIKE ITS THE ONLY WAY mmh? Actually, if you have observed the non-colonised countries have easily and successifully adapted any changes and ideologies they feel necessary, without any unnecessary disruption, be it from Britain or wherever way faster andbetter than the colonised ones and still maintained their pride. Furthermore, the discoveries and ideologies from Britain could have been developed independently by other people, who knows, its just that they were first bumped into by the Brits. Secondly, arguing that since other countries that did as the Brits did haven't apologised yet is just out of logic. Do you apologise because others apologise or do you do it because its the RIGHT THING TO DO? And if you really need masses for comfort then you would be happy to know that the Japanese govt formally apologised to South Korea for the damages, physically, psychologically and for hurting their pride for selfish gain Colombia did the same to its indeginous people.I personaly think colonisation actually denies the former colonies development in a psychological way in that its hard to adapt necessary changes that are British in origin in and vital to any human being [well since we occupy the same 'niche'] without the fear of indirectly justifying colonisation in the expense of thier pride and identity that was lost during forced control by Britain. Get it? It's kind of like a feeling of betraying yourself or something... its all psychology. Being related to a country that has been 'hurt' in this way is what makes these problems recurrent, affecting generations that were not physically there during the actual colonisation period. Your home country also forms a huge part of an individual you know.Apologising would be a symbol of undoing that and I am sure it would be in order and would greatly help the affected people to efficiently move on. The current British govt. is responsible since although the individuals who did this may be dead or out of office, they acted in the capacity of their govt. Also if the current govt. can automaticaly claim the achivements and the possessions aquired by the previous govts, it therefore automatically behave as a SINGLE ENTITY despite the chaging of individuals in office, therefore using the same 'rule', it automatically is also responsible for the wrongs of THE GOVT., otherwise it would be double standards on its part. I am not implying that every Briton should go around apologising or anything, but the govt. itself. Yes I agree that part of the problem may be within the countries themselves but the British govt. has a BIG part to play too and I think a FORMAL apology would be in oder. Plus it would be an HONERABLE THING Britain to do instead of burying its head in the sand and pretending while EVERYTHING is as clear as broad daylight to any logical person. It is also very risky for the future of Britain if it doesn't face up to their history; things will one way or another catch up to Britain [for every ACTION, there is an equal REACTION]. Apart from this why else woulnd't the British govt apologise? p.s. sorry for the grammatical erros.