Wednesday, 19 August 2015


(PHOTO: Adeyinka Makinde)

Statue of Colonel Claus Schenk Graf Von Stauffenberg in the re-constructed inner courtyard of the old 'Bendler Block' building complex in Berlin where he was executed after the abortive attempt on Adolf Hitler's life on July 20 1944. 

The plaque in front of the figure reads as follows:

Ihr trugt die Schande nicht.
Ihr wehrtet euch.
Ihr gabt das große ewig wache Zeichen der Umkehr,
opfernd Euer heißes Leben für Freiheit, Recht, und Ehre

You did not bear the shame.
You resisted.
You bestowed the eternally vigilant symbol of change
by sacrificing your impassioned lives for freedom, justice and honour.

The photograph was taken on a visit to the German Resistance Memorial Centre Stauffenbergstraße in Berlin-Mitte.

(c) Adeyinka Makinde (2015)

Saturday, 1 August 2015

Real Combat Media Historical Boxing: Whatever Happened To The Jersey Jolter, Frankie De Paula?

Bob Foster (right) with Frankie DePaula

By Robert Brizel, Head Real Combat Media Boxing Correspondent

October 31st 2014

Boxing fans tend to remember the great fighters, great fights and great moments in boxing. The late Hank Kaplan, who wrote Boxing Digest on his own for many years, was a walking encyclopedia of the fighters of his era, with most names long forgotten. As the boxing historian, I often feel a lot like Hank, as I feel very connected to some many people, places and events experienced as the reporter.

So many names have come and gone, some delegated to the obscurity of the subconscious, others are in the hereafter.

One such name is the ‘Jersey Jolter’, the late Italian American light heavyweight Frankie De Paula (1939-1970) of Jersey City, New Jersey. Frankie compiled a successful professional record of 21-7-3 with 16 knockouts, fighting in the shadows during the Cassius Clay-early Muhammad Ali days.

Many fighters never get a title shot or a significant fight. Near the end of his life Frankie DePaula fought two highly significant bouts. One was the bout of the year at Madison Square Garden in October 1968. Ex-WBA and WBC World Light Heavyweight champion Dick Tiger of Nigeria, afterlosing his world titles ot Bob Foster five months earlier, won a hair raising 10 round decision over DePaula at The Garden. Tiger went down twice in the second, DePaula went down twice in the third. Referee Arthur Mercante scored the bout 5-5, but his scorecard went to 7-6 for Tiger with the supplemental scoring method in place in New York at that time.

On the basis of that great performance, Bob Foster, for his first world title defense, gave DePaula a shot at his WBA and WBC world titles at The Garden in January 1969. DePaula was a big draw in his day and his presence sold tickets like wild at Madison Square Garden. It was a shock when DePaula dropped the hard hitting Foster in the first round. Foster beat the count, and came back to drop DePaula three times for an automatic first round TKO at 2:17. DePaula came back twice, scoring knockouts over undistinguished opponents in April 1969 and November of 1969.

An iron worker and 1962 New York Golden Gloves Sub Novice champion. After breaking the jaw of a police officer’s son in a street brawl, DePaula was incarcerated at Rahway State Prison, where he met middleweight Ruben ‘Hurricane’ Carter. A bar bouncer, hard partying womanizer, boozer, and drug user, had the right connections to rise above club fighter status. Unfortunately, DePaula hung out with the wrong crowd.

In May 1969, DePaula was arrested by Federal agents with seven others and charged with conspiracy, theft and possession of stolen copper from the Newark waterfront. His boxing license was suspended and he was later indicted for perjury. He was found innocent of possession and theft, with a hung jury on the conspiracy charge.

He was shot in Jersey City on May 14, 1970, in a mob hit. He was taken to Jersey City Medical Center where he developed paralysis and died four months later.

There were rumors DePaula’s title bout with Bob Foster was fixed by the mob, but it was never proven. Nobody was ever convicted of the DePaula hit. For those interested in learning more about Frankie DePaula’s life, a recent book, entitled ‘Jersey Boy-The Life and Mob Slaying of Frankie DePaula’ by Adeyinka Makinde, tells the DePaula story in great detail.

(c) Real Combat Media 2014

Wednesday, 15 July 2015

COMMENTARY: The Trouble with a Flag

Battle Flag Of The Army Of Northern Virginia

Part of the fallout from the recent massacre of nine African-American worshippers in a South Carolina church by a lone gunman has of course been the passionate and often embittered discourse on the role and significance of the confederate flag in American history.

For those with a neophyte base of knowledge of the civil war fought in the United States between 1861 and 1865, it has provided a welter of fascinating information about why the war was fought. It has also given a mass airing of insights into the characters of several leading figures on both sides of the conflict including their views on race and their personal records pertaining to the ownership of slaves.

Yet, if anything, many of the views garnered from a wide spectrum of sources merely seem to reinforce this outsider’s impression of an increasingly festering racial, cultural and political polarisation of the United States.

That a flag or insignia of some sort should stir a hornet’s nest of emotions is nothing new.

Symbols and colours often carry deep significance in many societies. For centuries, perhaps from time immemorial, the swastika was a symbol of fortune known by different names by different cultures. And while there are pressure groups among Hindu communities who would wish for a revival of its original identification and meaning, it would be foolhardy to believe that such moves would go unopposed even when grounded on an argument that is clearly at odds with Nazi philosophy.

Evidence of sensitivities aroused by the public display or marketing of particular symbols can be found in the 2011 decision of the European Court of Justice to ban the registration of the Soviet ‘hammer and sickle’ as a trademark within the European Union because it was a “symbol of despotism” for countries such as Latvia and the Czech Republic among those Eastern European countries who endured rule under the communist system for decades.

In Northern Ireland, a place where flags and symbols have always been extremely important, there is an increasing tendency among certain parts of the communities to fly the flags of two Middle Eastern entities. In certain areas populated in the main by Roman Catholics, it is the flag of the Palestinian territories.  In contrast, the flag of Israel is flown in Protestant ones.

Those who understand the history of Ireland as involving on the one hand the colonisation of an indigenous population and their dispossession, or, on the other, the sanctified resettlement by a purposeful people on a civilising mission, will know why each flag resonates alternately as an object of sympathy and of antipathy.

The complexities of the factors which tend to propel nations to civil war are no less present in the one fought between northern and southern states in America. The causes may be simplified, perhaps oversimplified to the point of mythologizing the narrative associated with the path to conflict. The American Civil war is alleged by one school of thought to have been consistently mischaracterised as a war to end slavery.

But South Carolina, the first state to secede, was unambiguous in its declaration that it was safeguarding “the right of property in slaves” against attempts by “the non-slaveholding states” to judge “the propriety of our domestic institutions” and to deny “the rights of property” in human beings.

And the vice president of the confederacy, Alexander Stephens, admitted that the dispute regarding the status of blacks in American civilization was “the immediate cause” of secession. Stephens claimed that the new government of the South was established on the “great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”

It is clear that while the primary aim of the war had been to preserve the union, the issue of slavery, always hovering in the background, later took its place as a specific war aim. Thus, the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1st 1863 as the war was approaching its third year has continued to be taken as evidence that the North was fighting to free slaves while the South was fighting to preserve the slave ystem.

Victors write history goes the well-worn phrase but the impositions on the South were not as harsh as most bitterly fought civil wars or wars of secession. There was not a prolonged army of occupation and the southern states were left with many vestiges of their way of life intact. One of these was the right to incorporate civil war-associated symbols within state flags.

The particular version of the confederate flag that is the object of controversy since the South Carolina slayings may not have universally represented the secessionist movement of the South at the time of the civil war or 'war of southern independence', but in the aftermath of the conflict it came to represent in the psyche of most a reference to presumptions as to the racial order in traditional southern culture.

To deny this would be disingenuous.

After all, the state of Georgia re-introduced the flag after the Brown v Board of Education decision on desegregation. And certain groups which espouse racial supremacy such as the Ku Klux Klan specifically make use of it.

Providing references to General Lee's 1856 letter to the then President Pierce in which he berates the institution of slavery to contrast to those sources confirming President Lincoln's goal of achieving the separation of the black and white races is ultimately not the crux of the matter.

The confederate flag came to be embraced by those in favour of racial separation and by those who practised terror against black American communities. It has become one form of artefact representing the era of ‘Jim Crow’  which succeeded a period of moderate advances made by blacks in the south in the years following the ending of the civil war. 

The protests of those who claim the confederate flag to be an inseparable aspect of southern culture choose to forget that the underlying basis of southern prosperity was the system of enslavement. Indeed, the president of the confederacy, Jefferson Davis in an 1861 speech delivered before his congress acknowledged the indispensability of the labour of African slaves to this prosperity.

The banning of anything in a country such as the United States because of its constitutional emphasis on freedom of expression always presents a huge problem in terms of its justification. Nonetheless, if the confederate flag represents to a significant part of its population the intolerable idea of racial supremacy and oppression of others, the rationale employed by the European Court in banning a coat of arms on the basis of it being “contrary to public policy and to accepted principles of morality” is worthy of consideration.

(C) Adeyinka Makinde (2015)

Adeyinka Makinde is a London-based writer.

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

COMMENTARY: Putin and Social Morality

While it has been the case in legal history that the laws enacted by legislators and judgments rendered by senior courts have not always reflected changes in social attitudes, the recent decision of the American Supreme Court in legalising gay marriage does in one sense represent the culmination of a remarkable shift in public opinion on the matter.

In the United States, nationwide polls dating from the 1990s showed that only a minority of the population supported the idea of same-sex marriage. But the level of opposition has weakened to the extent that polls in 2015 show support running at about around 60%.

There is, of course, dissent.

Those identifying themselves as traditionally Christian in religious belief and conservative in social values only see this development as being anathema and evidence of further erosion of the key building blocks on which society has for long rested.

It is an issue which like those of abortion and homosexuality features high as a divisive area of contention in the culture wars which continually polarize American society.

The aforementioned, however, is merely background for another issue that interests me on a number of fronts; namely that of the place of post-Soviet Russia in the context of the contemporary circumstances of the West.

For instance, does Russia potentially present a major part of an alternative global economic framework as a counter balance to the Anglo-American domination of the international financial system? Again, does Russian military might provide a much needed counterweight to what is seen as the aggressive and malign  record of the United States-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?  And does Russia provide an alternative to the secularized West in terms of the social mores that are promoted by the state? For it is the case that some see it as the defender of what is termed “traditional Christian values”; a irony given the many decades of criticism by American political and religious figures of the ‘godless’ system championed by the old Soviet Union.

It brings to mind comments made by Russian President Vladimir Putin in a speech delivered in a state of the nation address back in December of 2013. “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values,” he asserted. “Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”

Russia and its leader have unquestionably been in the crosshairs of the mainstream Western media for considerable period of time now. One area of the criticism -some would argue demonization- has related to the Russian state’s handling of matters pertaining to the rights of gays and lesbians.

While the official Russian position is to view enactments in this area as merely promoting traditional notions of gender and the family unit, much of the Western media has viewed each development as retrogressive and inhumane.

On the matter of Putin and the Russian state’s promotion of what it terms Christian morality, one can offer the following sober assessment.

My feeling is that while a segment of the Russian population, particularly among the older generation, may be genuine in their embrace of traditional Christian faith, the re-institution and empowerment of the Russian Orthodox Church is really a self-conscious attempt aimed at fostering a post-Soviet Russian identity, promoting patriotism and encouraging pride in a Russian culture that is different but not 'subservient' to the global dominance of Western European culture.

Russia's population has for long been in steady decline. The abortion rate was very high during the Soviet era and men die early from the effects of alcoholism. What better way to boost the birth rate of the country than by encouraging procreation within the traditional trappings of marriage?

It would present a near impossible task to measure what may be perceived as a ‘moral index’ comparing Russia with the United States or Western Europe as a whole. But if one measurement pertains, say, to that of abortion as a social ‘evil’, then Russia lags behind the ‘decadent’ West. A 2010 report by the United Nations titled “World Abortion Policies” found the rate of abortion in Russia to be the highest of any country with recorded data on such operations.

Russia of course continues to be plagued by the pervasive influence of gangsters at all levels of society, and any assessment of its purported leadership of nations wishing to revert to a more virtuous stance on the range of ills facing modern society would be evidence of a Kremlin-led crusade against corruption.

Even Putin’s achievement in neutralising the power of a number of oligarchs who arose in the circumstances of the chaotic transition from the Soviet to laissez faire economic order must be approached with caution, for it is the case that he has not rid Russia of the bulk of oligarchs or seized their ill-gotten wealth since his conditions were that they could keep their wealth so long as they did not sponsor any political challenges against him.

It brings to mind another trade off Putin has made with the resurgent Christian Orthodox Church. The photographs of the grand living circumstances of higher echelon priests have received media attention. The argument may of course be that they deserve to be given some 'pomp' as a symbol of their status vis-a-vis the state and society.

But there is a difference between a living standard that is appropriate to an official office and one that is ostentatious, which of course Jesus Christ himself taught against. The austere lifestyle promoted by Christ is not reflected in the lifestyle of the head of the Russian Church, Patriarch Kirill,  who has access to expensive dachas and an air jet; who enjoys luxury holidays in the Swiss Alps and who hosts visitors who have included characters with decidedly unsavoury reputations. The photograph of the Patriarch disembarking from his official jet surrounded by a retinue of near mini-skirted uniformed female bodyguards is quite striking.

Comparisons with the lifestyle of the modern day oligarch would be in order.

To press home this point, it would be remiss not to mention a picture of the Russian Patriarch attired with a seriously expensive watch. The resulting howls of protest from certain quarters in Russia led to an atonement of sorts. Harking back somewhat to its Stalinist past, the picture was photo-shopped in order to remove the 'offending' watch. The only problem was that the retouch failed to eliminate the reflection of the Patriarch's 'bling' from the polished table.

The Vladimir Putin-ruled new Russia is often used as a mirror in contra-distinction to the West in which critics and supporters alternately seek to criticise or affirm the values and policies of one over the other.

But any sincere and objective analysis of this cannot hold the one side to be consistently superior to the other. There is much evidence, for instance, to back up the Russian claim of the West’s deliberate fomenting of trouble within Russia as well as on its borders which is followed by the construction of Russian aggression when it has in fact reacted in legitimate defence of its national interests. 

Putin deftly wrong-footed  those in the United States who wished to use the 2013 chemical attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta as an excuse to enable direct action by NATO against the forces of President Bashar Assad. 

Furthermore, the creation of an international bank with the assistance of China provides the potential for a credible alternative to those non-aligned nations who weary of the present international financial system and its capacity for creating a lasting subservience to the West as well as perpetuating a cycle of indebtedness.

However, one cannot use this as the basis of an overarching claim of the moral supremacy of Russia over the West any more than objections to Russia’s failure in many instances to reflect the rule of law can be used as the basis for a blanket disavowal for any of its internal and external policies.

But on the specifically raised issue of the efficacy of Russia’s promoting moral values, an old and wisely formulated adage applies:

"Physician, heal thyself".

(c) Adeyinka Makinde (2015)

Adeyinka Makinde is a London-based writer.

Sunday, 31 May 2015

Books to Read

SS Colonel Jochen Peiper’s life and career in the Nazi era, his trial for war crimes and violent death in a French village in the 1970s; FDR’s role in America’s transition from Isolationism to a war footing and the Geoffrey Morton-Avraham Stern battle of wills in the Holy Land all present an appetising brew of reading as summer approaches.

When has the corpus of what is known as history which grows incrementally from what for a period of time is considered the present and contemporary ever known of an era of political and social pacification?

War and terror continue to be used as instruments pursuant to the creation of new state borders and the engineering of social transformation.

As the subject matter of these books show, the creation of the League of Nations in the early 1920s failed in the ambitious aim of ‘abolishing war’ for all times. And as recent events in the Ukraine and the Middle East demonstrate, the Fukuyamian idea of the ‘End of History’ continues to elude human civilization.

In the Ukraine, Bandera worshipping groups of the far Right facilitated the overthrow of a democratically elected president, and in the subsequent civil strife between the Western and Eastern parts of the nation, militias modelled on the regiments that composed the Waffen-SS actively recruit Western Europeans to fight a ‘racial war’ in the East.

In the Middle East, Wahabbi extremists of the Sunni denomination under the banner of the Islamic State seek to create a puritan Muslim state at the expense of the secular modelled states of Syria and Iraq.

It is unlikely in the former case that the typically indoctrinated volunteer of the Ukrainian Azov Brigade would be unfamiliar with the life stories of Waffen-SS officers such as the Belgian Leon Degrelle and, of course, Joachim ‘Jochen’ Peiper who continues to be revered as a poster-boy for the brave and fanatically disposed SS-man.

Peiper has not only been the subject of biographers of the Second World War, his craft as a practitioner of tank warfare and abilities as a leader of men has been the subject for researchers in military colleges.

Some years ago, I discovered a paper written by a Dutch military officer studying at the US Army Command and General Staff College. Entitled The Beginning of the End: The Leadership of SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Jochen Peiper, the thesis sought to appraise the capabilities of Peiper as a military leader notwithstanding the notoriety garnered by the Waffen-SS during the Second World War and the designation of the SS as a whole as a criminal organisation.

Peiper is perhaps best known as one of the main defendants at a military commission which tried him for responsibility of the massacre of captured and unarmed US troops at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge. Peiper claimed that he gave no orders to shoot the Americans and was unaware of any general orders not to take prisoners alive.

However, as the leader of the panzer group from which the killers were attached, he accepted ultimate responsibility and was condemned to death; a verdict which was later commuted to life imprisonment.

He was later released but would continue to be threatened by those who wished to deprive him of earning a livelihood and those who wished for him to be tried for war crimes.

His past caught up with him in a small French village when his identity was discovered and he was murdered by suspected French communists when his home was firebombed in the early hours.

With over 400 pages representing years of research, Danny S. Parker’s Hitler’s Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper promises new insights into Peiper’s time as Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler’s adjutant, his battles in ferocious encounters on the Eastern and Western fronts, his trial and his post-war life.

The subject of Patrick Bishop’s The Reckoning has as its backdrop, the dream of political Zionists to carve out a Jewish homeland in the United Nations mandate territory of Palestine which was governed by Britain.

Among the most virulent of opponents of British rule was Avraham Stern, a Jewish émigré from Poland who was a poet, philosopher and exponent of political terrorism.  Stern was a militant disciple of Ze’ev Jabotinsky whose extremism made him break ranks with the Zionist leadership who suspended their collective agitation against British rule in order to support the pressing matter of defeating Hitler’s Germany.

While members of the Palmach, the Haganah and even the Irgun joined the war effort, Stern stubbornly held out for an alliance first with Mussolini’s Italy and then the German Reich in the quest for the creation of a Jewish state.

His efforts were rebuffed.

The book centres on the contest of wills between Stern and British policeman Geoffrey Morton who finally cornered Stern in an apartment in Tel Aviv. Stern’s subsequent shooting by the Englishman was and continues to be shrouded in controversy. Was it an act of self-defence? Or was it a cold blooded murder?

Today the killings continue in the Middle East with the focus being on the attempts to create an Islamic State by fanatics who are sustained by huge reserves of resources and an effectively managed propaganda arm which emphasises mercilessness toward captured enemies via means that have included high production value videos featuring staged beheadings.

For those who refute any analogy between the barbarity of the Islamic State and the tactics employed by the Zionist terror groups such as the Irgun and the Stern Gang, one only has to wonder what distinctions can be made between the beheading of captured Syrian soldiers defending their land from an invasion of largely foreign sponsored mercenaries and the hanging of British policemen by wire in booby-trapped orange groves?

For while there is approval –secret or publically expressed- of IS murders of Shias, Christians and recalcitrant Sunnis by some Muslim residents in the Western nations, the sentiments of some Zionists in the West at the time of violent anti-British agitation in Palestine such as that expressed by Hollywood playwright Ben Hecht,  bears reminding.

“Every time a British soldier dies”, Hecht proclaimed, “the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.”

Terrorism as the historian Niall Ferguson has argued is the original sin of the Middle East.

And while Stern was condemned for criminal acts of robbery and gruesome murders, Bishop’s book appears to promote the view that his killing created a martyr who proved more influential in death than he did as a marginalised figure in life in achieving the creation of a Jewish state.

Nicholas Wapshott’s book, The Sphinx chronicles and analyses President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s policy of persuading America to break with its isolationist position into one of intervening in a violent European conflict.

The subtitle of his effort, ‘Franklin Roosevelt, the Isolationists and the Road to World War II’ gives an indication of Roosevelt’s reputation as a wily political operator who was schemer par excellence.

A perusal of the jacket cover and the preface provides examples of some of the influential personalities he was up against.

Father Coughlin, the firebrand Roman Catholic priest who initially supported Roosevelt’s New Deal policies but who later turned against FDR was one who was famously neutralised by the machinations of the president who obtained the help of the Vatican to silence a priest who boasted of a large radio audience in the 1930s.

Another figure was Joseph P. Kennedy, the patriarch of the Kennedy family, who as ambassador to the Court of St. James earned the reputation as a supporter of the ‘appeasement’ of Nazi Germany. Those familiar with some of the numerous biographies of his sons as well as personal biographies such as Ronald Kessler’s The Sins of the Father, will know of how FDR manipulated a manipulator into diffusing the threat Kennedy posed to his leadership of the Democratic Party with appointments in Wall Street and his role as an ambassador.

The other prominent figure from the isolationist camp covered by Wapshott is the famous aviator, Charles A. Lindburgh.

All three it should be noted garnered a reputation for anti-Semitism for publically, declaring that intervening in a European war served “Jewish interests” and not that of America.

They all shape up to be fascinating reads.

Adeyinka Makinde (2015)

Hitler’s Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper by Danny S. Parker is published by Da Capo Press.

The Reckoning: How the Killing of One Man Changed the Fate of the Promised Land by Patrick Bishop is published by William Collins.

The Sphinx: Franklin Roosevelt, the Isolationists, and the Road to World War II by Nicholas Wapshott is published by Norton Books.

Tuesday, 21 April 2015

Boxing Etching by Joseph W. Golinkin

At Chicago – Louis and Braddock” 1938 (LITHOGRAPH: Joseph W. Golinkin)

The moment when Joe Louis downs James J. Braddock, ‘The Cinderella Man’, in the seventh round to win the world’s heavyweight championship at Chicago’s Comiskey Park. The date was June 272nd 1937. Louis, whose moniker was ‘The Brown Bomber’, became the first black world heavyweight champion since Jack Johnson. He would go on to rule the division for a period of almost 12 years and in the process make a record-setting amount of defences.

The artist, Joseph Golinkin was for want of a better term a ‘renaissance man” who excelled in art, sailoring –he rose to the rank of rear admiral in the United States Navy and- and environmental work.

TEXT: Adeyinka Makinde (2015)

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

A Mea Culpa Demand

Back in July 2014, I sent the following to an Igbo-Biafran nationalist who made use of quotes mis-attributed to me in a self-published book.

The letter speaks for itself.

I really do not want to get ad hominem in the quintessentially bombastically chest-pumping and self-righteous manner that is typical of the discourse between those Nigerians who consider themselves as purveyors of intellectual knowledge and paragons of truth when in fact they are essentially ‘tribal men in suits’.

There really needs to be an elevation in the general level and quality of discourse which all too frequently degenerate into tribally motivated rancour.

This man Cajetan Iwunze should do the decent thing and correct his errors and issue a civilized apology.

July 2nd 2014

Dear Mr. Cajetan Iwunze,

Cease and Desist Request - Comments wrongly attributed to Adeyinka Makinde in your book

My attention was drawn to an excerpt of a book entitled ‘The Political Constraints on Nigerian Economic Development Since The (sic) Independence’.

You are identified as the author.

A view of the relevant section of the aforementioned book at ‘Google Books’ presents the following quotations attributed to ‘Adeyinka Makinde’ culled from an edition of the Nigerian Daily Sun newspaper published on 10th December of 2007 and other sources such as the Igbo Village Newsletter of 27th January 2011 and The Guardian of 19th July 2004:

-“Where did this (sic) people get off feeling superior to other people, when it is clear that they are not?”

-“The mental disorder where the individual has delusions but does not hallucinate. In delusional disorder, also known as paranoia, the individual believes what is not true as true … believes that he is superior to other people … Igbos have a delusional disorder ( a group can have paranoia, this is called follie adeu (sic))”

I would like to put it on the record that neither of the above words were written or spoken by me.

Any comments by me in relation to the Igbos and Jews were made in two sources:

1. A talk given by me at the Jewish Museum on October 22nd of 2007 entitled ‘Igbos: A Lost Tribe of Israel’…/igbos-lost-tribe-of…

2. A reply to a rejoinder to my talk by Mr. Ozodi Osuji entitled ‘The Igbo and Jewry’…/03/igbo-and-jewry.h…

Mr. Osuji’s responses to my talk, respectively entitled ‘Igbos are Africans not Jews’ and ‘Igbo and Jewry: Any Connection? – A response to Mr. Adeyinka Makinde’, were published at a website named

The original links of Mr. Osuji’s are no longer available but have been reproduced at various sites on the World Wide Web.

This appears to be a chronologically correct thread containing my original talk and the correspondence between Mr. Osuji and myself:…/the-igbo-a-lost-tribe-…/

At no point will you observe me using any of the quotations attributed to me in your book.

The second bulleted quote regarding delusional disorder are referenced to a Nigerian Guardian articled dated from July 2004. I had offered nothing on the subject of Igbos and Jews at this period in time.

So far as the other quote is concerned, I sent a letter to the editor of the Daily Sun stating that an article attributed to me was in fact written by Mr. Osuji and asked that this be corrected.

I received no reply.

I also issued a vigorous rebuttal to one Law Mefor who made a comment at ChatAfrik again attributing Mr. Osuji’s words to me.

This really is all down to rather sloppy research on the part of the Daily Sun, Law Mefor and now, as it turns out, you, Mr. Iwunze.

The expectation is that those who publish newspapers and those who term themselves writers ought to hold themselves to the highest standards of professional conduct including the exercising of due diligence during the research process as well as the correcting of published errors.

This, much to my regret, is a feature sadly lacking in this matter.

Therefore I would be grateful for you to do the following in future editions and/or print-on-demand batches of your book:

-Make the appropriate corrections to the relevant text and reference notes of your book which wrongly attribute certain quotations to me

-Provide a short note specifically indicating the misattribution of the quotations and a statement of apology.

If you have any queries about anything in this communication, I can be reached at

Yours sincerely,

Adeyinka Makinde