Dubai Ruler In Vast Charity Gift

I came across this story on the BBC as well as the other dominant news agencies:

"The ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, says he is giving $10bn ($5bn) to set up an educational foundation in the Middle East.

The money is meant to improve the standard of education and research in the region, and aims to stimulate job creation, Sheikh Mohammed said.

It is thought to be one of the largest charitable donations in history.

The announcement was made to widespread applause at the World Economic Forum, which is being held in Jordan.

Sheikh Mohammed, known as a successful racehorse owner as well as ruler of Dubai, said his personal initiative was aimed at creating what he called "a knowledge-based society" in the Middle East.

At the moment, he explained, there was high illiteracy in the region - where more than 40% of Arab women cannot read or write.

The whole Arab world publishes fewer books than the country of Turkey.

And spending on scientific research is only a tiny fraction of that in developed countries.

"There is a wide knowledge gap between us and the developed world in the West and in Asia. Our only choice is to bridge this gap as quickly as possible, because our age is defined by knowledge," the sheikh said.

While there may be less learning in the region, there is high unemployment, and it is likely to get higher with a rapidly growing population.

"Our region needs at this moment 15 million job opportunities, and our Arab world will need in the next 20 years between 74 to 85 million job opportunities," the sheikh told the conference.
"We need to develop the infrastructure so we can create jobs."

Sheikh Mohammed hopes to increase education and research, and also to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship throughout the region.

"In order to realise these objectives, I have decided to establish the Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum Foundation to focus on human development, and have I decided to endow a fund of $10bn to finance its projects," he said.

As ruler of Dubai, he can share the success of his principality, which is known the world over as the economic success story of the Middle East."

From a personal philanthropic point-of-view, it's nice to see top politicians pin pointing education as a fundamental concern for the general uplift of society. I know of people who would argue that simply throwing money at the situation is unlikely to solve anything, and that pouring money into the problem is a Western (thus capitalist) solution to an Eastern problem. I, however, disagree. I think Sheikh Mohammad's money will have a big impact on illiteracy, for example, and I think his generous donation will also draw attention to the problem.

Yours, wherever you may be,
Daniel C. Wright.

Winning In The Ghetto: Explaining Harlem Through The Life And Times Of Malcolm X

The complexities and paradoxes of Harlem can be partially understood through the kaleidoscope of the life and work of (Mr.) Malcolm X, with close reference to James Baldwin’s The Fire Next Time and Claude Brown’s Manchild In The Promised Land. It is my intention to demonstrate this by dividing the characteristics of Harlem into explaining four fundamental concepts: Harlem as a place with a pre-determined destiny due to geographical elements; Harlem as a space for change under the umbrella of democracy in the United States, being itself a microcosm of a black metropolis for the world’s black people; Harlem as a space where forces of good and evil co-exist and collide in a ghettoised prism, resulting in the notion of ‘good’ being heavily distorted; and finally Harlem as the white man’s ‘sleaze pit’ where white persons go to indulge in illicit customs. In the following essay it is my intention to illustrate how Harlem, when considered in these guises, and contextualised historically from 1940 through the 1960’s, changed Malcolm X from a naïve Michigan boy to a hustling, street-talking Harlemite, and then to a leader for the black community. Throughout, I will draw upon specific details given in the above texts.

GEOGRAPHICS

To begin, it is important to understand the significance of the geography of Harlem. In broad terms, this means placing the neighbourhood in relation to the rest of Manhattan. Harlem is located directly north of Central Park, with 110^th street being the southern ‘dividing line’. Malcolm X noted in his autobiography that “when we left Central Park at the upper end, at 110^th street, the people’s complexion began to change[1].” Indeed, 110^th street was, during Malcolm X’s lifetime at least, a definitive barrier between classes and races. It is less so today, but it remains a significant point of reference on the majority of Manhattan maps. It should not surprise us in the least that Malcolm felt a change in the air when he crossed 110^th street. We may be surprised, however, to read that around 110^th Street was “the worst of the ghetto, the poorest people[2].” Even within the Harlem ghetto, a hierarchy remained.

While Harlem is basically a single borough, its streets are what New York’s African-Americans call (or are supposed to accept as) home. At the age of thirteen, James Baldwin learnt this from a police officer in the centre of the intersection: “the cop in the middle of the street muttered ‘why don’t you niggers stay uptown where you belong?’[3]” it is significant that Harlem is quite central on Manhattan; to the East and West of Central Park to the South, Harlem is bordered by predominantly white neighbourhoods, and Washington Heights is to the North of the black community. Excepting Central Park, Harlem is completely surrounded by white boroughs, full of people with different coloured skin and people of a supposed different class. The captivity of the black man in the United States is certainly evidenced by these geographic idiosyncrasies, which all add to the experience of living in Harlem, and must be taken into account as having a positive effect in reinforcing the Nation of Islam ideology. Even Baldwin concedes that “it is ‘only the so called American-Negro’ who remains trapped, disinherited, and despised, in a nation that has kept him in bondage for over four hundred years. . .[4]” Indeed, the location of Harlem could be one of the principle reasons for Claude Brown referring to Harlem as being “exploited and neglected[5].”

The grid system played an important part in the development of Malcolm X. The logistics of such a system results in the creation of a series of generic corners. At busy intersections, the corners become a focal point. Baldwin notes how he: “sometimes found myself in Harlem on Saturday nights, and I stood in the crowds at 125^th Street and Seventh Avenue, and listened to the Muslim speakers[6].” The Nation of Islam speakers were not the only ones who preached on soapboxes and step-ladders at the bustling intersections to anyone who would listen. Malcolm X realised this:

. . . the big trouble, obviously, was that we were only one among the many voices of black discontent on every busy Harlem corner. The different Nationalist groups, the ‘Buy Black!’ forces, and others like that; dozens of their step-ladder orators were trying to increase their followings[7].”

We can see from this that the grid system in place across Manhattan Island allows speakers to address a large number of people at once. Citizens can congregate and listen, and the orators also have the chance of catching the ear of passers-by as well. The manipulation of geography within the urban spectrum helped Malcolm X when he was the hustler selling cannabis to the drug addicts. When he had come out of prison, he used the same locations to sell his story of the white man being the devil to the dishomed African-Americans who now occupied the ghettos of America’s metropolises.

A SPACE FOR CHANGE

It is possible to understand Harlem as an urban space for change under the umbrella of democracy, on account of it being a focal point for black people across the world. This is evidenced in the writing of Claude Brown, who not only insists that “to me, New York was Harlem[8],” but also says he “used to tell everybody jokingly - but I half believed it - that Harlem was the capital of the world[9].” Not only does this explain Malcolm X’s desire to go and experience Harlem, but it underlines the importance of the borough to African-American culture. Harlem gave African-Americans a sense of identity; this is reinforced by Brown’s notion that Harlem was still his “point of relating to life and events and putting them together[10].”

Considering this, we can apply a similar theory to the hustling of Malcolm X. He managed to sell marijuana all up and down the East coast of the United States, through the manipulation of a railroad identification card. When he ran out of supplies, he would return to New York (Harlem), load up and then hit the road again[11]. Harlem became his base for his operation. It was his personal starting point for what he expected to be his life’s work. In a more general sense, this a reflection on the African-American relationship to the borough.

The notion of Harlem being the black man’s America is one which does not sit comfortably with the young James Baldwin. Throughout the opening part of The Fire Next Time, he feels sickened by the gangster lifestyle which was evident on a day-to-day basis on the Harlem streets. This is important because it is the opposite view taken by Malcolm X and Claude Brown who, for a short time at least, enjoy the characteristics of Harlem living in the age of sin:

“I was icily determined - more determined, really, than I then knew - never to make my piece with the ghetto but to die and go to hell before . . . I would ‘accept’ my place in this Republic[12].”

His anger at the misdemeanours of life on the Harlem streets is later adopted by both Brown and, to a greater extent, Malcolm X, yet his initial unwillingness to live out the gangster lifestyle even for a short time indicates that, for all it’s lacking of moral standards, Harlem can a place to empower the individual. In the case of Baldwin, it drove him into the church[13] and made him a better person for it. Baldwin freely admits he was scared to be living in such close proximity to so many evils, but this made him starkly aware of what was right. Malcolm X (and to a lesser extent Claude Brown) gain this awareness only after having been sucked into Harlem’s seedy underworld (though a great many things happened in broad daylight) and gained first hand experience of life without morals.

Any urban space has the ability to change any man in any number of ways. The specific characteristics of Harlem life clearly result in everyone being someone, and Baldwin seems quite resigned to the fact that change happens in Harlem, and change happens fast. In his words, “one doesn’t, in Harlem, long remain standing on any auction block[14]” before the nuances of life in the borough change your outlook on life and your personality. They changed Baldwin for the better, as they did Brown and Malcolm too, but only after years of experience of the nuances.

GOOD VERSUS EVIL

Certain characteristics of the Manhattan neighbourhood point to it being a space where forces of good and evil co-exist and collide in a ghettoized prism, and where the notion of good is distorted. Running the numbers, for example, is represented by Malcolm (and others) as being an accepted part of Harlem life: all citizens recognise it as being a relief from the stresses of living in the ghetto and most African-Americans dreamt of hitting the big combination one day[15]. The police, for what they were worth, turned a blind eye to the numbers runners[16] and allowed the practice to flourish. This all went on regardless of the fact gambling was deemed wrong by New York law, hence it being illegality[17].

This distortion as far as the characteristics of acceptability are concerned is paralleled by a greater sense of what is unacceptable. Claude Brown, for instance, remarks how stealing from the poor is utterly wrong when a numbers banker failed to pay out after a win[18].

What is good and what is wrong is very different within the Harlem ghetto. Streetcorner philosophers[19] appear on the corner of many busy intersections appealing to Harlemites to listen to them and believe in what they are saying. Baldwin takes a distanced approach to such street politics:

“I have long had a very definite tendency to tune out the moment I come anywhere near either a pulpit or a soapbox. What … men were saying about white people I had often heard before[20].”

What Baldwin is referring to as “often heard before” is the berating of the white man. The portrayal of the white man as the devil would not have been anything new to any Harlemite. Malcolm X would soon be one of the people maximising the cosmopolitan way of life in Harlem in such a way in an attempt to try and get his political message across, but the acceptability of that political message outside of the 110^th Street to 155^th Street microclimate is unquestionably going to endure a harsh reception.

To reduce it to a lower common denominator, black is portrayed as good, while white is portrayed as evil. Baldwin notes how, to the supporters of the Nation of Islam at least, “Allah, out of power, and on the dark side of heaven, had become – for all practical purposes, anyway – black[21].” For Brown, being as far away from light skinned, the more accepted you were into the Harlem community, as if having a darker shade of skin made you a better person than a lighter skinned counterpart[22]. Such assumptions and such warped values were acceptable and sustained in the Harlem which moulded Malcolm X, though they would most likely not be actively endorsed by people of authority and power.

SLEAZE PIT

The evils of Harlem made the area between 110^th Street and Washington Heights into one big market. The market catered for the white man, and it is possible to understand Harlem as the white man’s ‘sleaze pit’, selling all the evils one can handle.

The young Malcolm X did not take long to notice that white people were not a novelty in Harlem; as he put it, “blacktown crawled with white people[23].” As he grew to know Harlem a little better, he slowly realised they came for the atmosphere: Harlem was a special place for them, too. Though Malcolm came close to white people early on during his time in Harlem (the NYPD recommended Small’s (where he worked) to white people looking for a ‘safe’ place up in Harlem[24]), he would later come to know ‘sinful’ as being all too good a synonym for ‘white’.

The riot of 1943 had a detrimental impact upon Harlem being a fun place for white people from downtown. After 1943, few whites went North of Central Park after dark, preferring to get their kicks in other areas of Manhattan. The only white people who continued to go there after dark were in pursuit of illegalities.

With substantial amounts of money involved, Malcolm X played a part in helping rich white men (and thus usually powerful and important white men) live out their bizarre sexual fantasies. The women who ran the operation now needed ‘steerers’ to get her white clients into, and out of, Harlem without them being seen; this is where Malcolm came in. His first hand experience of this business resulting in him declaring “Harlem was their sin-den, their fleshpot[25].”

Interestingly, he notes that, in this black-white nether world, no one ever judged the white men[26]. Later, however, Malcolm X would realise the errors he had made in his life, and as he became detached form the Harlem hustling scene, it is likely he would develop a very low opinion of the political leaders and the leaders of society whom he dealt with. To deny these experiences of white New Yorkers had a detrimental affect on Malcolm X is foolishness; he was often invited in by the white men to watch the whippings they craved from the African-American women[27]. These experiences must partly explain his deepest feelings towards white people when he first left prison a Muslim. As James Baldwin noted: “the Negro’s experience of the white world cannot possibly create in him any respect for the standards by which the white world claims to live[28].”

The transparency of these exchanges is debatable. The chances are that tails of these services being provided by African-American women for (often ageing) white men slipped out into common knowledge somewhere down the line, whether it be by word of mouth or a passer-by seeing something odd. If we take this into consideration, and combine it with some hard facts, we get a detailed picture of the black-white relationship in Harlem during the given time frame:

Ø Authorities invested next to nothing in Harlem[29];

Ø Mayor LaGuardia closed the Savoy[30];

Ø Rents in Harlem were higher than most of the rest of Manhattan[31];

Ø White merchants in Harlem refused to hire black people[32];

Ø A white policemen shot a black soldier at the Braddock[33].

The latter two were the cause of the 1935 and 1943 riots respectively. If we take all these into consideration, we get a greater understanding of why Baldwin asserted that “one did not need to prove to a Harlem audience that all white men were devils[34].” In the work of Malcolm X with the Nation of Islam, we see this inherent belief, personified by incidents in the borough of Harlem, run explicitly through his work.

To conclude, by reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X in close relation to The Fire Next Time and Manchild of the Promised Land under the four guises outlined previous, we get a good sense of the urban landscape and the social make-up of the Harlem which transformed Malcolm X, first into a criminal, and then permitted him to be a devoted believer in the dangerous notion of the Nation of Islam: the white man is the devil. It is important to understand both aspects of Malcolm X’s life to get a grasp of the paradoxes which were present in Harlem from (roughly) 1940 through the 1960’s and which can, and do, exist in any urban space.

---

[1] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 157

[2] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 191

[3] The Fire Next Time, page 26

[4] The Fire Next Time, page 65

[5] Manchild in the Promised Land, page 179

[6] The Fire Next Time, page 46

[7] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 317-8

[8] Manchild in the Promised Land, page 53

[9] Manchild in the Promised Land, page 119

[10] Manchild in the Promised Land, page 198

[11] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 192

[12] The Fire Next Time, page 29

[13] The Fire Next Time, page 32

[14] The Fire Next Time, page 32

[15] Autobiography of Malcolm X; page 171

[16] Manchild in the Promised Land, page 51

[17] Section 5-401 of the New York Constitution, as cited by http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/New-York/

[18] Manchild in the Promised Land, page 209

[19] Manchild in the Promised Land, page 61

[20] The Fire Next Time, page 46-7

[21] The Fire Next Time, page 46

[22] Manchild in the Promised Land, page 63

[23] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 169

[24] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 178

[25] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 209

[26] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 209

[27] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 209

[28] The Fire Next Time, page 28

[29] Manchild in the Promised Land, page 190

[30] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 202

[31] The New York Times, December 13, 1937, page 02; “Negro Rents Held Artificially High; Post, at Hearing, Says That Harlem Tenants Are ‘Gouged’ Since They Cannot Move” http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C14FB3B5A157A93C7A81789D95F438385F9

[32] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 202

[33] Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 203

[34] The Fire Next Time, page 48

Transcript of the Speech of the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, MP

Trimdon Labour Club, Sedgefield

Monday 10 May 2007

It's a great privilege to be here with you again today and to thank all of you too for such a wonderful and warm welcome.

I'd just like to say also if I might and just a special word of thanks to John Burton. John has been my agent here for many years now. He's still the best political adviser that I've got. He's...he's all the years I've known him he's been steadfast in his loyalty to me, to the Labour Party and to Sunderland Football Club, not necessarily in that order.

You know it's been my great good fortune at certain points in my life to meet exceptional people and he is one very exceptional person. And also if I may refer to another exceptional person who's my wife, friend and partner, Cherie.

And the children of course. Euan and Nicky and Katherine and Leo who make me never forget my failings...but give me great love and support.

So, I've come back here to Sedgefield, to my constituency, where my political journey began and where it's fitting that it should end. Today I announce my decision to stand down from the leadership of the Labour Party. The party will now select a new leader. On the 27th June I will tender my resignation from the office of Prime Minister to the Queen.

I've been Prime Minister of this country for just over 10 years. In this job, in the world of today, I think that's long enough, for me, but more especially for the country. And sometimes the only way you conquer the pool of power is to set it down.

I can only describe what I think has been done over these last ten years and perhaps more important why I tried to do it, and I never quite put it in this way before. I was born almost a decade after the Second World War. I was a young man in the social revolution of the 60s and the 70s. I reached political maturity as the cold war was ending and the world was going through a political and an economic and a technological revolution. And I looked at my own country. A great country with a great history and magnificent traditions, proud of its past. But strangely uncertain of its future. Uncertain about the future, almost old fashioned.

And all that was curiously symbolised you know in the politics of the time. You, you had choices, you stood for individual aspiration and getting on in life, or a social compassion of helping others. You were liberal in your values, or conservative. You believed in the power of the state or the efforts of the individual. Spending more money on the public realm was the answer, or it was the problem. And none of it made sense to me. It was twentieth century ideology in a world approaching a new millennium.

Of course people want the best for themselves and their families, but in an age when human capital is a nation's greatest asset, they also know it's just and sensible to extend opportunities, to develop the potential to succeed for all our people not just an elite at the top. And people today are open minded about race and sexuality. They're averse to prejudice. And yet deeply, rightly, conservative with a small 'c' when it comes to good manners, respect for others, treating people courteously.

They acknowledge the need for the state and the responsibility of the individual. And they know spending money on our public services matters and they know it's not enough. How they are run and organised matters too.

So 1997 was a moment for a new beginning. The sweeping away of all the detritus of the past. And expectations were so high. Too high probably. Too high in a way for either of us. And now in 2007 you could easily point to the challenges or these things that are wrong or the grievances that fester.

But go back to 1997. Think back, no really think back. Think about your own living standards then in May 1997 and now. Visit your local school - any of them round here or anywhere in modern Britain. Ask when you last had to wait a year or more on a hospital waiting list or heard of pensioners freezing to death in the winter unable to heat their homes.

There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: more jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter. Only one government. This one .

But we don't need statistics. There's something bigger than what can be measured in waiting lists or GCSE results or the latest crime or jobs figures. Look at the British economy: at ease with globalisation. London, the world's financial centre. Visit ou8r great cities in this country and compare them with 10 years ago. No country attracts overseas investment like we do.
And think about the culture in Britain in the year 2007. I don't just mean our arts that are thriving - I mean our values. The minimum wage. Paid holidays as a right. Amongst the best maternity pay and leave today in Europe. Equality for gay people.

Or look at the debates that reverberate around the word today - the global movement to support Africa in its struggle against poverty. Climate change, then fight against terrorism. Britain is not a follower today - Britain is a leader.

It gets the essential characteristic of today's world. It's interdependent. This is a country today that fort all its faults, form all the myriad of unresolved problems and fresh challenges, it is a country comfortable in the twenty-first century. At home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but also confident of its future. You know I don't think Northern Ireland would have been changed unless Britain had changed. Or the Olympics won if we were still the Britain of 1997.

And as for my own leadership, throughout these ten years where the predictable has competed with the utterly unpredicted, right at the outset one thing was clear to me. Without the Labour Party allowing me to lead it nothing could ever have been done. But I also knew my duty was to put the country first. That much was obvious to me when just under 13 years ago I became Labour's Leader.

What I had to learn, however, as Prime Minister was what putting the country first really meant. Decision-making is hard. You know everyone always says in politics: listen to the people. And the trouble is they don't always agree.

When you are in Opposition, you meet this group and they say 'why can't you do this?' And you say: 'it's really a good question. Thank you'. And they go away and say: 'it's great, he really listened'. And then you meet that other group and they say: 'why can't you do that?' And you say: 'it's a really good question. Thank you'. And they go away happy that you listened.

In Government you have to give the answer, not an answer, the answer. And, in time, you realise that putting the country first doesn't mean doing the right thing according to conventional wisdom or the prevailing consensus or the latest snapshot of opinion. It means doing what you genuinely believe to be right; that your duty as prime minister is to act according to your conviction. And all of that can get contorted so that people think that you act according to some messianic zeal. Doubt, hesitation, reflection, consideration, reconsideration; these are all the good companions of proper decision-making but the ultimate obligation is to decide.

And sometimes the decisions are accepted quite quickly; Bank of England independence was one, which gave us our economic stability. Sometimes, like tuition fees or trying to break up old, monolithic public services, the changes are deeply controversial, hellish, hard to do. But you can see we're moving with the grain of change around the world. And sometimes, like with Europe, where I believe Britain should keep its position strong, you know you are fighting opinion but you're kind of content in doing so. And sometimes, as with the completely unexpected, you are alone with your own instinct.

In Sierra Leone and to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo I took the decision to make our country one that intervened, that did not pass by or keep out of the thick of it. And then came the utterly unanticipated and dramatic September the 11th 2001 and the death of 3000 or more on the streets on New York. And I decided we should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our oldest ally and I did so out of belief. And so Afghanistan and then Iraq, the latter bitterly controversial. And removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease, but the blowback since from global terrorism and those elements that support it has been fierce and unrelenting and costly. And for many it simply isn't and can't be worth it. For me, I think we must see it through. They the terrorists who threaten us here and around the world will never give up if we give up. It is a test of will and of belief. And we can't fail it.
So: some things I knew I would be dealing with. Some I thought I might be. Some never occurred to me, or to you, on that morning of 2 May 1997 when I came into Downing Street for the first time.

Great expectations not fulfilled in every part, for sure. Occasionally people say, as I said earlier, the expectations were too high, you should have lowered them. But, to be frank, I would not have wanted it any other way. I was, and remain, as a person and as a Prime Minister an optimist. Politics may be the art of the possible; but at least in life, give the impossible a go.
So of course the visions are painted in the colours of the rainbow; and the reality is sketched in the duller tones of black, white and grey.

But I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong, that's your call. But believe one thing, if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country. And I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future and, you know, I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future. This is a country that can today be excited by the opportunities, not constantly fretful of the dangers.

And people say to me it's a tough job, not really. A tough life is the life led by the young, severely disabled children and their parents who visited me in Parliament the other week. Tough is the life my Dad had; his whole career cut short at the age of 40 by a stroke.

Actually, I've been very lucky and very blessed and this country is a blessed nation. The British are special. The world knows it; in our innermost thoughts we know it. This is the greatest nation on Earth.

So it has been an honour to serve it. I give my thanks to you the British people for the times that I have succeeded and my apologies to you for the times I've fallen short.

But good luck.