DailyTech - Microsoft Launches African "Green Laptop" Initiative

Submit News

Hardware Microsoft Launches African "Green Laptop" Initiative
Jason Mick (Blog) - June 13, 2008 11:16 AM

34 comment(s) - last by JimmyC.. on Jun 15 at 6:24 PM

Microsoft's new product looks to provide a socially equitable, affordable marketplace, and and also to expand Microsoft's influence into a developing market

Information and communications technology (ICT) has been a critical part of the foundation on which the economic successes of countries such as India has been laid. However, one of the most populous regions of the world, Africa, remains woefully behind in terms of developing tech industry potential. Products such as the OLPC initiative and Intel's Classmate PC have looked to bring laptops to underprivileged children in Africa.

Now Microsoft is launching a more capitalist fair-trade solution. Microsoft in 2007 entered into a partnership with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). Now Microsoft is launching Uganda Green Computers Co., a new fair-trade computer refurbishing business, which will bring affordable computers to Africa.

The new business should be key to Uganda, which has an economy built upon small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) such as coffee growers and clothing makers. Typically these businesses have had trouble finding affordable software and hardware. The new service center hopes to do its part to fix these problems as it will aim to offer 10,000 refurbished PCs at $175 (299,000 Ugandan shillings), about a third of what a typical new computer costs in Uganda. The computers will come with an impressive one year warranty, and feature Windows software.

The president of Uganda, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, represented by his prime minister joined director-general of UNIDO and the corporate vice president of the Microsoft Unlimited Potential Group in an opening ceremony. Ham-Mukasa Mulira, minister of information and communications technology of Uganda praised Microsoft for trying to make a difference.

He states, "The opening of the PC refurbishment centre in Kampala marks a major step forward for the economic opportunities available to SMEs, the majority of employers in Uganda. Access to affordable PCs will help SMEs increase their productivity, share information, grow their business, create local jobs and ultimately help make Uganda a more competitive, knowledge-based economy."

Patrick Bitature, chairman of Uganda Green Computers Co., says the business while having altruistic foundations makes economic sense. He states, "There is a significant market in Uganda for refurbished PCs, but until now no one has addressed the issues of affordability, training and recycling in a way that makes sense long-term. The centre in Kampala has created 22 new jobs already and is expected to grow to over 50 within a year. It will help develop a local and regional industry for responsible and profitable PC refurbishment and recycling for the future."

The main center will source work to 6 smaller distributors. By the end of the year, this number is expected to grow to about 20. The central location will provide staff training on customer support and marketing. The network will work closely with the District Business Information Centres, a series of computer cafes set up around the company by UNIDO to provide free access.

The new center is not only equitable, but also green. RAM and circuit boards will be recycled. The copper and other valuable components will be sold. Steel and plastic will be locally recycled. And toxic substances such as lead glass will be carefully disposed of in an environmentally safe fashion.

Will Poole, corporate vice president of the Unlimited Potential Group at Microsoft is thrilled to work on the project. He states, "We have been working with UNIDO over the last two years to help create business opportunities for SMEs in Africa. Our investments in sustainable PC refurbishment practices and programmes in Uganda are all the more rewarding given the potential we see for ICT to foster innovation, create jobs and accelerate the competitiveness of local SMEs."

Microsoft and UNIDO aren't setting their sights low. Their goal is to bring technology to 1 billion more people by 2015. And for all its good intentions, you can bet Microsoft has another good reason to support the initiative -- it surely hopes those billion people will be a billion new Windows users.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Senseless

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2008 11:44:34 AM , Rating: 5

African children don't need laptops. They need governments that don't rape, steal, plunder, and murder.

Until African nations reduce the wanton corruption and violence of their rulers, and generate an environment conducive to business and learning, initiatives like this will remain a waste.

RE: Senseless

By 306maxi on 6/13/2008 11:51:46 AM , Rating: 3

So true. But the moment you say this to most people they accuse you of racism. The worst thing the colonial powers did was give black people power before giving them education and therefore a better ability to choose between a guy like Mugabe and someone who actually has their interests at heart.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By Sundox on 6/14/08, Rating: 0

By Sundox on 6/14/2008 2:38:50 AM , Rating: 0

This is not racism but ignorance.
what do you know about precolonial africa?
did you know that universities where invented in Timbuktu and that Timbuktu had the greatest concentration of univerities on earth until these present days?
white men never gave power to africans they took it from them and then missdirected them.
black men gave education to white men, while white men where still keeping their filth on they're cities streets and for a solution they invented PREFUME, the whole of africa already had an very sofisticated sanitation system.
what do you know about africa being retribalized so the population can be controled by Toubob?
just because african science did not lead to massdestruction and slavery does not mean that they weren't developed.
what does Mugabe in Zimbabwe has to do with Museveni in Uganda? This is like comparing Hugo Chaves to Angela Merkel.
have you ever learned that the great Cesar and the not so great Hitler had black african generals in their armys, because african war tactics where the best?
have you ever wondered why Dhingis Khan wasn't sucsessfull in Africa, or how Hanibal almost took over europe, crossing the alps with elefants?

Parent

RE: Senseless

By Ringold on 6/14/2008 4:31:43 AM , Rating: 2

Any of that matters today... how?

Just about every patch of dirt has had its 15 minutes of historical fame. That doesn't change the fact that Africa is least developed, least well governed and most impoverished, corrupt, and downright dangerous place to live on Earth today. If you look at any index, such as the Human Development Index, you'll find a bunch of African regimes in competition to see who can be the lowest ranked.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By 306maxi on 6/14/2008 1:22:34 PM , Rating: 2

Wtf? I'm talking about the last 50 years or so. That's the bit that's mattered. Central, Southern, East and West Africa are a mess. It's bad enough when you have dictators but it's even worse when people willingly elect these sorts of people....

Of course Africa is the cradle of civilisation in a lot of ways. That just makes it's current state even more sad.....

Parent

RE: Senseless

By JasonMick

(blog) on 6/13/08, Rating: -1

RE: Senseless

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2008 12:22:10 PM , Rating: 5

> "Would you support or oppose additional economic/bans sanctions on countries/companies who import large amounts of automatic weapons/munitions to Africa "

No. It's a popular myth that Africans are only killing each other because of the prevalence of Western weapons. However, during the Rwandan massacre of 1994 -- the bloodiest conflict of the past half-century -- as many people were killed with machetes and clubs as with guns.

These arms embargos are just another manifestation of the West attempting to carry its own guilt for the problems of another continent. There have been just as many brutal African regimes overthrown with western-armed freedom fighters as there have been the reverse.

The problem isn't the guns. It's the culture of violence.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/13/2008 12:35:54 PM , Rating: 2

True, I do remember watching the TV see guys walking around with bloody machetes. I remember thinking I'm glad to live in a much more stable country.
They need to choose to change for the better. The only way some one can even understand that they have a option is through eduction. So I'd ask... Can we help them raise their general education level? If so, should we help them raise it or should they have to do it on their own? Will things like cheaper computers actually help or cause more problems?

Parent

RE: Senseless

By JasonMick

(blog) on 6/13/2008 12:49:35 PM , Rating: 1

Thats true, I never said they were only killing each other besides that.

However, I think you could agree that its a lot easier to kill a person with a gun than a machete. With a machete, first you have to catch them. Then you have to fight them in physical combat.

Further from a psychological aspect its a lot less attached to just pull a trigger and kill someone than it is to take a machete/club and beat/cut someone to death. In a crazed state those kind of things can happen in mass, but from a psychological perspect, they're a lot harder for people to do.

Plus its guns are a far quicker way to kill given sufficient amunition. And in the crossfire there may be many unintended victims if both sides have guns. This could happen with a machete, but it'd be a little harder to "accidentally" hit your buddy or some kid with a machete.

Guns might not be the only way they're killing each other, but they are a major way. If you took away this and even cut deaths by 40 or 50 percent that'd go a long way.

I agree with you about the culture of violence, but under a well armed regime that will never change. And like you said under a well armed regime, you won't be able to have education, etc. Its a vicious cycle.

The one part of your statement I found funny/was a bit incredulous at was this:

quote:
There have been just as many brutal African regimes overthrown with western-armed freedom fighters as there have been the reverse.

Yea. But sadly then the "western-armed freedom fighters" became brutal regimes themselves in most cases. As you said its a culture of violence.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2008 1:12:24 PM , Rating: 3

> "However, I think you could agree that its a lot easier to kill a person with a gun than a machete"

But its a lot easier to defend yourself with a gun than a machete, particularly if you're young, elderly, female, or simply somewhat weak, and your attacker is a group of muscular male thugs.

In the American West, the pistol was hailed as the "Great Equalizer". It freed people from the tyranny of brute muscle. No longer would one man be able to enforce his will on others, simply because he was largest and strongest.

> "If you took away [guns] and even cut deaths by 40 or 50 percent that'd go a long way."

I posit that its just as likely that it would increase deaths as it would reduce them. Certainly it couldn't possibly reduce deaths 50 percent, as currently much less than 50% of all people in Africa are killed by guns. The simplest and most common method is simply to confiscate all the food and starve them to death.

That's why eliminating guns isn't the answer. When the local warlord shows up with 50 thugs, a few guns in the village can mean the difference between survival or submission and eventual starvation.

18th-century Africa had nearly no guns at all, and it was even more violent and brutish than it is today. Will eliminating guns help Africa...or will it simply plunge it further into ruin and decay?

> "Further from a psychological aspect its a lot less attached to just pull a trigger and kill someone than it is to take a machete/club and beat/cut someone to death"

For someone who has never killed before -- possibly. But for a hardened killer, there's no difference whatsoever at all.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By JasonMick

(blog) on 6/13/08, Rating: 0

By JasonMick

(blog) on 6/13/2008 1:56:45 PM , Rating: 0

This could go back and forth all day, so I'll let you have the last word if you want, but a few more comments :)

quote:
American West, the pistol was hailed as the "Great Equalizer"

...Yes but Africa is not the American west. And a handgun may be a great equalizer, but an assault weapon is nothing more than a means to kill masses of people, and in the hands of anyone but a trained member of a responsible military/police force, this is an extremely dangerous proposition.

Further the "guns can be used to defend the elderly female..." is a weak argument often held. The same advantages largely apply. Young, desperate skilled thugs with fast reflexes will win usually over surprised, inexperienced, and slow defenders.

After all its a common misconception that elderly/women/etc can defend themselves with knives and sharp objects. Read:
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0408/513871.html
For a particularly amazing one

And:
http://www.bushipower.com/sd_news.php

For tons more examples of people of all ages defending themselves (with no guns!) against brutish attackers.

Sure starvation kills the most people; confiscation will happen with or without guns. However as far as violent deaths go, they WOULD decrease at least by banning assault weapons shipments.

quote:
When the local warlord shows up with 50 thugs, a few guns in the village can mean the difference between survival or submission and eventual starvation.

When the well equipped, well armed local warlord shows up with assault rifles and surprises the village, a few handguns or assault rifles stashed around the village will do little, except kill a couple of the attackers, adding to the total casualty count, but doing little to avoid the inevitable.

quote:
18th-century Africa had nearly no guns at all, and it was even more violent and brutish than it is today.

Depends on what parts you're referring too. Some were in chaos, after having their leaders killed, villages destroyed, and riches plundered in the slave trade. Others (say the Zulus) were certainly in a medieval mindset. But this is too overarching a statement to accurately describe 18th century Africa. And lets face it, behavior in the colonies and Europe in the 18th century was "brutish" by todays standards, and they had lots of guns.

quote:
Will eliminating guns help Africa...or will it simply plunge it further into ruin and decay?

Thats a provocative question which you don't answer I see, but put out there as an ambiguous and emotional alarmist statement to sway people to your viewpoint.

Lastly:

quote:
For someone who has never killed before -- possibly. But for a hardened killer, there's no difference whatsoever at all.

Perhaps for a hardened serial killer, agreed, but in the average large African militia or in any armed force most members have killed only one or two people at most, even in violent regions. Even in Africa you'll be hard press to find a militia composed entirely of hardened killers. Whether its a good or bad thing, in such medieval times "true warriors" (read hardened killers) are always in short supply, despite constant violence, due to the truism -- the more you kill, the more likely you are to be killed.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2008 2:06:50 PM , Rating: 2

> "its a common misconception that elderly/women/etc can defend themselves with knives and sharp objects"

I assume you meant "can't". And yes, it's possible...but its far easier to defend oneself with a firearm than without one.

And you're still dodging the point. Will removing guns from Africa make it a more civilized nation? Based on history, the answer is clearly no.

Furthermore, the mere question itself is condescending and denigrating to the people of Africa. Every other region of earth is mature enough to possess guns...but they're childish to have them? The rest of the world has to play nanny? It's borderline racism in my opinion.

> "...a few handguns or assault rifles stashed around the village will do little, except kill a couple of the attackers"

Exactly. And when you have 500 villages to subjugate, a few deaths at each one means an end to your campaign.

> " but in the average large African militia or in any armed force most members have killed only one or two people at most, even in violent regions"

In the Rwandan Genocide, 30,000 militia may have killed as mnay as one million civilians...all in a few months time. Do the math on how many murders that is per member.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By JasonMick

(blog) on 6/13/2008 2:25:58 PM , Rating: 2

One quick one ....

quote:
Every other region of earth is mature enough to possess guns...but they're childish to have them? The rest of the world has to play nanny? It's borderline racism in my opinion.

I'm talking about assault weapons being banned, in case I was too ambiguous. Your comment makes no sense from that perspective -- almost no developed nation allows assault weapons in the hands of citizens or disorganized entities...

Australia -- no assault weapons, no hand guns for "self defense", only hunting privileges

Canada -- no assault weapons

European Union -- no assault weapons

UK -- no assault weapons, handguns only allowed in rare cases, such as farmers who regularly use them to put down animals.

Finland -- No automatic weapons

Japan -- No assault weapons, no handguns

...and
The United States -- no automatic weapons

(please note there are rare exceptions to all these cases as stated by the law, ie gun range ownership, etc.)

...and as the one exception
Switzerland -- government issued assault weapons

Parent

RE: Senseless

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2008 2:44:13 PM , Rating: 2

> "I'm talking about assault weapons being banned"

No, you're talking about (western) Nation A imposing economic sanctions on (non-African) Nation B, because its chosen to legally sell arms to the government of (African) Nation C.

Whether or not an individual African nation chooses to ban assault weapons for ownership by individual citizens is certainly up to them. If they do so -- and some foreign government or corporation continues to sell to private citizens -- there are already a multitude of enforcement options available to them.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/13/2008 3:13:49 PM , Rating: 2

you both have good points. However imposing economic sanctions on countries to prevent Nuclear weapons is one thing. To try to control another countries policy about letting its people have assault weapons or not...Well that just not our (the other countries) business.
You can not blame China (or whomever) for selling the weapons. They are just trying to make a buck and their moral view of the world and life is completely different then your view. Individual rights and value of life are pretty low in most Asian countries.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By Ringold on 6/14/2008 4:50:06 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Switzerland -- government issued assault weapons

Minor correction; there are some 320,000 assault rifles in private hands in Switzerland, though apparently they have been converted to semi-automatic fire only. (Source:wiki) For fully automatic ones, you're right, they're in the hands of militia members.

As for my own 2 cents on the subject, as far as home defense goes, I don't care if I'm in Africa, America, or Mars. If someone starts trying to break in, then I prefer a firearm. I don't want to learn fancy martial arts or how to effectively wield a bladed weapon; thats useless if the invader can pick me off from across a room with a firearm of his own. No. I want to put as many bullets in his center of mass as quickly as I can -- but accurately. In that sense, I wouldn't use an AK-47 for home defense.

However, in Africa, where the nanny state is no where to be found, I probably would opt to keep a fully automatic assault rifle laying around. For a handful of thugs, then a rifle and/or a handgun does the trick. For a dozen raiders, then it's time to lay down some serious pain, lest my cows be stolen and my women raped.

I can see things from the other perspective; they can be used in offense as well as defense. Unfortunately, the American experiment in gun control indicates that when they are banned and restricted the criminal elements, strangely enough, still manage to arm themselves.

Says Law states, according to Keynes, that supply creates its own demand. For firearms, I hereby coin the Ringold Law; Demand will always create its own supply!

Feel free, somebody, to nominate me for a Nobel prize.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By JimmyC on 6/15/2008 6:24:42 PM , Rating: 2

Always remember, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By amanojaku on 6/13/2008 12:14:48 PM , Rating: 3

Nowhere in this article does this say this is for children. This is aimed primarily at businesses because this is a commercial venture, and children rarely have the money to afford computers.

I would disagree that children, or African citizens in general, don't need computers, however. Remember that yesterday's PC hobbyist grew up to be today's programmer, electrical engineer and/or CEO. The simple fact that people are exposed to technology forces them to question the current state of their existence. If you can go on the Internet you can spend your time looking at porn. You can also spend that time learning about things that don't exist in your own home. This is why many Middle Eastern countries, China and North Korea do their best to control what people are exposed to over the Internet. Ideas promoting free speech, religious tolerance, gender equality, advanced education, reduced military presence, and the responsibility of a government to its citizens are suddenly at your fingertips.

In short, there is no choice between non-corrupt governments (which doesn't seem to exist anywhere) or modern technology. Everyone needs both. For good or ill, universal access to to technology made the world what it is today.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2008 12:25:40 PM , Rating: 3

> "I would disagree that children, or African citizens in general, don't need computers"

What good is a laptop to a child, when the local warlord simply swoops in and confiscates it to sell to finance his regime? Or the child simply dies of malaria or dengue for want of a 50-cent prophylactic treatment?

Parent

RE: Senseless

By amanojaku on 6/13/2008 12:28:52 PM , Rating: 2

I repeat, with a grammatical correction:

quote:
In short, there is no choice between non-corrupt governments (which don't seem to exist anywhere) or modern technology. Everyone needs both.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By Parhel on 6/13/2008 2:02:23 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
In short, there is no choice between non-corrupt governments (which don't seem to exist anywhere) or modern technology. Everyone needs both.

While it's true that a perfect government without any corruption doesn't (and could never) exist, you are blatantly minimizing the problems in Africa. Without basic government protection against violence, a laptop or any item of value is a liability rather than a benefit. It would be akin to giving you a piece of meat while you were in a tiger's cage. You need food as well as safety, right?

Parent

RE: Senseless

By Mojo the Monkey on 6/13/2008 4:09:45 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
African children don't need laptops. They need governments that don't rape, steal, plunder, and murder.

actually, I would tend to think that you need to attack the problem from multiple angles. many of these problems are perpetuated by a population without reasonable prospects of being competitive in the global economy or obtaining a broad view/education. As with so many other problems, how can you suggest that attempting assist education and vocational skills wont indirectly affect the stability of the people and their government?

I just dont think that all of their problems wouldnt return within 3 years if you instantly cleaned up the government, but left the people in the same plight.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By Ringold on 6/14/2008 5:01:29 AM , Rating: 2

It's a chicken-and-egg problem.

If you give them laptops and computers and don't clean up the government, you end up with no real gains.

However, if you clean up the government first, then all other things flow naturally, as a clean government is concerned with governing rather than self-enrichment. Rwanda's post-genocide government has steadily improved, for example, and Rwanda's economic condition has significantly improved as a result.

Good governance needs to come before all else.

Parent

RE: Senseless

By Sundox on 6/14/2008 2:08:14 AM , Rating: 2

African children?
what about american children your kids in Peru they need

quote:
governments that don't rape, steal, plunder, and murder.

european kids from albania need

quote:
governments that don't rape, steal, plunder, and murder.

you are generalizing the most diverse continent as is if it was a village.
what do you know about Mr. Museveni and his affords?
the united states is the richest country on earth and still has people starving and ridicoulus high crime and violence rates.
Eminem is from Detroit!!!

Parent

Amazing...

By SilthDraeth on 6/13/2008 1:34:01 PM , Rating: 2

I am not arguing against you Masher. I just find it surprising that the topic at hand is Microsoft doing something good, and the discussion at hand is the merits of guns in the brutal and violent culture prevalent across parts of Africa.

Valid points and definitely off topic.

On the topic of their violent culture, my Grandfather said it well a decade or so ago...

They are violent people, always fighting, they fight over in Africa, and never developed technology or culture, or government that would make them prosperous. And the same chaos is happening in the United States.

People scream racism, but race has to have something to do with were we are today.

If all races were exactly the same except for the color of skin, there wouldn't be such widespread differences.

But over the course of thousands of years the different races of man have developed different gods, beliefs, languages, culture, etc, whatever you want to call it. Some areas have developed technology, and some areas in the world today live the same way they did 3000 years ago.

I don't recall any Caucasian races being known to live in tribes in the far reaches of South America, Europe etc, hunting rodents with pointed sticks today.

RE: Amazing...

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2008 1:46:34 PM , Rating: 2

The Germanic tribes of pre-Medieval Europe were easily as violent as anything Africa ever produced.

Personally, I've always thought the difference had nothing whatsoever to do with race, but rather simply weather. Cold climates force people to generate effective means of living together (i.e. governments) simply to survive. Warm regions -- be they in Africa, Polynesia, or Southeast Asia -- have always lagged behind for that very reason.

Parent

RE: Amazing...

By bobsmith1492 on 6/14/2008 8:23:31 AM , Rating: 3

What about the South American empires - Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, et. al.? They seemed to be particularly well-organized as far as government goes, though they killed lots of their own people and ended up dying out for the most part. That can be said of any system of government thus undertaken (that has lasted more than a few hundred years).

Parent

RE: Amazing...

By Parhel on 6/13/2008 2:18:07 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I don't recall any Caucasian races being known to live in tribes in the far reaches of South America, Europe etc, hunting rodents with pointed sticks today.

If you're going to make no effort to understand human history, you aren't doing anyone any favors by airing your ignorance to the world at large. If the so-called races were as different as people like you like to suggest, we couldn't even produce viable offspring together.

If you do feel like actually understanding why white people have fared so much better in recent history, you might do well to read some actual history. "Guns, Germs & Steel" is an easy and entertaining introduction to that topic.

Parent

RE: Amazing...

By SilthDraeth on 6/14/2008 10:09:53 PM , Rating: 2

Thank you.

I admit to being ignorant of a great many things in life, and I may have made some exagerations but lets look at something, since you said:

quote:
If the so-called races were as different as people like you like to suggest, we couldn't even produce viable offspring together.

Looking at humans and Chimpanzees, after mapping genomes, there is only 1.23% divergence shown.

Yet, we can reproduce with Chimpanzees, and there is a huge difference in physical appearance. The difference between the races of man, are obviously a lot smaller, but we are of the same species.

True there are millions of factors to take into account when trying to figure out why one area of the world prospers and another fails.

I just offered one opinion.

Parent

RE: Amazing...

By amanojaku on 6/13/2008 2:32:22 PM , Rating: 2

Sigh... You may be intelligent, but you are definitely ignorant.

Intelligent - adjective - having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals.

Ignorant - adjective - lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact.

Violence has always existed in history and will continue to exist because human beings are human beings. Some of us are good, some of us are bad, most of us fall in the middle. To say that Africans, or members of any other race, are violent because of the actions of a few is ignorant at best and prejudiced at worst. I don't feel Germans or Austrians (Adolf Hitler was Austrian) are bad people because of the Holocaust, nor do I feel that Americans are bad because of Japanese "internment" during World War II or African slavery. The same goes for Muslims (radical terrorists,) North Koreans (Kim Jong-Il and company,) Cubans (Fidel Castro and company,) Iraqis (Saddam Hussein,) or any number of groups.

Modern Africans are very different from their ancestors, and for one reason: Western domination. When Europe ruled Africa the local customs changed and history was lost. When European countries pulled out power was handed to a few corrupt groups who spread terror while the populace suffered. The tribes "hunting rodents with pointed sticks" aren't killing and raping; the corrupt governments groomed by the European countries are.

Every group that hast existed has a culture, whether or not you think it's developed. Wikipedia has a wonderful description on culture. I've lifted the first two paragraphs, but you should read the rest:

quote:
Culture generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance. Cultures can be "understood as systems of symbols and meanings that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another." Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity.

Culture is manifested in music, literature, lifestyle, painting and sculpture, theater and film and similar things. Although some people identify culture in terms of consumption and consumer goods (as in high culture, low culture, folk culture, or popular culture) anthropologists understand "culture" to refer not only to consumption goods, but to the general processes which produce such goods and give them meaning, and to the social relationships and practices in which such objects and processes become embedded. For them, culture thus includes art, science, as well as moral systems.

As for African government you should read the following links:

http://www.africankingdoms.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire

quote:
I don't recall any Caucasian races being known to live in tribes in the far reaches of South America, Europe etc, hunting rodents with pointed sticks today.

That's because Europe is tiny compared to other continents, monarchs were greedy for land, and technology allowed kingdoms or empires to dominate and/or wipe out groups at will.

Parent

RE: Amazing...

By Keeir on 6/13/2008 7:58:13 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Modern Africans are very different from their ancestors, and for one reason: Western domination. When Europe ruled Africa the local customs changed and history was lost. When European countries pulled out power was handed to a few corrupt groups who spread terror while the populace suffered. The tribes "hunting rodents with pointed sticks" aren't killing and raping; the corrupt governments groomed by the European countries are.

You overall make some very salient points, but fail I think in the assumption that any people are "noble" savages.

People are people, and the unfortune things is that while -some- cultures in African before Western Colonization were "advanced" and "peaceful". Some were war-like and capable of slaughtering entire villages. This is true around the world and in every nation. Even in sparely populated Americas cultures developed/rose to power by the often times brutal genocide of an earlier culture.

Although Western colonization as a whole does not appear to be benefical for most African counties, not every single ill can be laid at thier feet.

Parent

Incoming: Requests for Urgent Business Relationships

By OdinX on 6/13/2008 6:22:44 PM , Rating: 2

Excellent now I will have many more opportunities to assist the good people from Africa in transferring money as well as being able to benefit from the rampant over billing practices of the Nigerian Petroleum companies and other prominent companies and officials.

M$ at heart

By JonnyDough on 6/14/2008 6:31:54 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
TextMicrosoft's new product looks to provide a socially equitable, affordable marketplace, and and also to expand Microsoft's influence into a developing market

Shouldn't those two reasons be reversed? M$ doesn't care about Uganda, M$ cares about money, and then MAYBE cares about Uganda. Let's be realists here.

Windows?

By amanojaku on 6/13/2008 11:51:30 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
The computers will come with an impressive one year warranty, and feature Windows software.

I'm shocked! I would have sworn an initiative started by Microsoft would use Linux or MacOS! But don't worry, I'm sure MS loaded K, GNOME, or OpenOffice!

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates