January 12, 2008

IQ-Race Crimethink Alert! Francis Crick, James Watson's DNA partner, also guilty

Besides Everest-conquerors Edmund Hillary and Tensing Norgay, another famous pair of names forever linked with the year 1953 are the discoverers of the structure of DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick. The Englishman Crick is usually considered the greater theoretical genius of the two, although Watson, before his recent firing for political incorrectness on the race-IQ issue, displayed an amazing knack for getting people to get important things done, despite (or perhaps because of) his irascible personality.

Watson has, of course, been in the news lately, getting dumped from his post as chancellor of the Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory. Now, a reader has pointed out to me that Watson's elder partner, Crick (1916-2004), was also guilty of holding the same views on race and IQ.

Some of the Francis Crick Papers are now online, and they are certainly illuminating. For example, during the controversy in 1969-1971 over IQ and race launched by Arthur Jensen's 1969 Harvard Education Review article and William Shockley's call for financial incentives and penalties to encourage higher IQ reproduction, Crick, a strong supporter of Jensen, threatened to resign as a Foreign Associate of the American National Academy of Sciences if steps were taken to "suppress reputable scientific research for political reasons."

In contrast, in 2007 almost nobody stood up for James Watson.

Really, isn't it about time that we dig up the bones of Crick and fire him? How can we live with ourselves knowing that there are thought criminals who escaped their just rewards by the trick of dying before we could properly humiliate them? Judging from these letters, it sounds like several other greats, such as Ernst Mayr and C.P. Snow, deserve posthumous show trials and exemplary punishment too. I'm sure there are others...

By the way, Francis Crick was, according to Nobel Laureate Peter Medawar, named after Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton, inventor of regression analysis and coiner of the term "eugenics." It is striking how many of the great biologists of the 20th Century, such as Crick, Ronald A. Fisher, and William D. Hamilton were part of the Galtonian tradition. Galton is constantly denounced these days as a pseudo-scientist, yet many of the great subsequent discoveries in genetics and statistics were made by Galton's enthusiasts.

Here are some letters from and to Francis Crick. The first exchange, in 1971, concerns an earlier letter signed by biochemist John T. Edsall, evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, and five other members of the American National Academy of Sciences responding negatively to Shockley's call for research into the origins of average IQ differences among the races.

Crick replied to Edsall:

22 February 1971

Dr. John T, Edsall
Fogarty International Center
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland 2 0014

Dear John,

I have been very distressed to see the letter to the President of the National Academy by you and six other Academy members regarding a Proposal by Dr. [William] Shockley [Nobel laureate in physics]. Like you I have not published anything on the population problem, but f have become fairly familiar with the literature of the subject. I have also talked to Dr, Jensen when he visited the Salk Institute recently.

Unlike you and your colleagues I have formed the opinion that there is much substance to [Berkeley psychologist Arthur] Jensen’s arguments. In brief I think it likely that more than half the difference between the average I.Q. of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, and will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in the environment. Moreover I think the social consequences of this are likely to be rather serious unless steps are taken to recognize the situation.

While any present conclusions are tentative, it seems likely that the matter could be largely resolved if further research were carried out. I should thus like to know two things. Would you and your colleagues please state in detail why they think the arguments put forward by Jensen are either incorrect or misleading. Secondly, would they please indicate what research they think should be done to establish to what extent "intelligence" is inherited. This is surely the important point, and is equally valid for a country without a racially mixed population.

The most distressing feature of your letter is that it neither gives nor refers to any scientific arguments, but makes unsupported statements of opinion, This, I need hardly remind you, is politics, not science. The voice of established authority, unsupported by evidence or argument, should have no place in science, and I am surprised to find that you, of all people, should put your name to a letter of this character written to the Academy on a matter of scientific research. I am cure you will realize that if the Academy were to take active steps to suppress reputable scientific research for political reasons it would not be possible for me to remain a Foreign Associate.

I hope you will forgive me writing so frankly, but we have known each other now for a long time, and I have a great respect for your opinion on matters such as this. I am not, for the moment, sending a copy of this letter to anyone else.

Finally I should comment on the last paragraph in your letter. I cannot answer for Shockley, but I know that both Jensen and I would agree with you on that point. But this has no bearing on how intelligent, on the average, people’s children are likely to be.

I leave here tomorrow, and expect to be back in Cambridge on 1st March.

Yours sincerely,

F. H. C. Crick

FHCC :11

Edsall answered with a quite conciliatory letter, to which Crick replied:

29th March, 1971

Dr. John T. Edsall
Fogarty International Center
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Md. 20014

Dear John

I was very pleased to receive your letter of March 5, especially as it strikes a rather different note from your letter to the Academy. I agree with you that [Nobel physics laureate William] Shockley arouses a maximum of antagonism, but this I think is due to his manner rather than his matter. In fact, [Berkeley psychologist Arthur] Jensen pointed out to me that while he and Shockley say much the same thing, Shockley always manages to upset people!

I agree with you about Jensen’s paper, I’m afraid none of us is immune from bias on this subject, but his seems quite small. I do not agree with you about [Harvard geneticist Richard] Lewontin. He makes a useful point - that the difference between two populations may still be due to environment, even though within both populations the variance may be largely genetic but it is one that most people in the field are aware of. Otherwise his tone is to be deplored, although it shows how strongly people feel about this subject.

As to your point about the I. Q. results on American Indians being mainly due to their cultural tradition, this may be so, but personally I doubt it. How do you explain the relatively poor I. Q. performance of the children of middle-class American negroes?

I. Q. tests do seem to me to be useful, in spite of their obvious limitations, if only because people’s social aspirations are highly correlated with I. Q. That is, if the population as a whole is asked to rank occupations (most people would rank doctors higher than dustmen), then this ranking is almost perfectly correlated with the average I. Q. of the people in the occupational groups (i.e. doctors have, on average, a higher 1, Q. than dustmen). Naturally for comparing differences between two cultural groups an I. Q. test should be, as far as possible, culture-free.

I have not seen the report of the Academy Committee headed by [sociologist] Kingsley Davis, but I look forward to reading it in due course.

What I miss most is constructive approaches to this problem, Can the “environmentalists” set up in an experiment an environment which will make the I. Q. difference disappear? If they can’t do that, then the hope of doing anything on a large scale in a social context is remote. Can the “geneticists” produce an experimental test which will show definitively that more than half the difference is genetic? Incidentally, a reasonable- design for such an experiment exists, but nobody (except possibly Shockley) will fund it, mainly due, I suspect, to the attitude of people like yourself and your colleagues, and of [Oxford geneticist Walter] Bodmer and [Stanford population geneticist] Cavalli-Storza.

I still feel that if you and your colleagues do not agree with Jensen’s tentative conclusions, you would do a useful job by refuting his argument point by point. Also, I would like to see your plans for research in this field, so one can see how long a period is likely to be involved.

May I make a general suggestion, which I put forward in a lecture a year or so ago, which might be drawn to the Academy’s attention? A most powerful research tool is the study of identical twins separated at birth. Jensen has recently looked into all the cases for which I. Q. data are available and finds there are only about 125 of them. Why should not a Twins Institute be formed? This would encourage people who have twins to let one of them be adopted by another family. Both the rate of production . of twins and the rate of adoption are sufficiently high that worthwhile numbers would soon accumulate. It is essential to keep track of such cases, and examine them periodically, and this would be the job of the Institute. Let me emphasize that there would be no compulsion for people who have twins to let one (or both) be adopted, though they might be encouraged by a modest subsidy given in return for the right to examine the children periodically. Such a scheme seems to me so humane and useful (contrast it with military conscription) that once people had become used to the idea, I think it would be socially acceptable. What do you feel?

If you wish do please show our letters to your colleagues. I would be interested in their reactions.

Yours sincerely,

F.H.C. Crick

Edsall replied in a letter you can read here, suggesting that population growth was the crucial problem of the era.

Crick answered in a short letter that hasn't been fed through an optical character reader, so I will excerpt from it. After agreeing with Edsall on the importance of population limitation, Crick wrote:

I don't think the small amount of money which is needed to start eugenics research will in any way compete with this. The main difficulty is that people have to start thinking out eugenics in a different way. The Nazis gave it a bad name and I think it is time something was done to make it respectable again.

As far as I can see, we are in agreement on all this except perhaps for a slight difference of emphasis.

The "Twin Institute" proposed by Crick was eventually more or less brought into existence by University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas J. Bouchard, whose landmark "Minnesota Twins" study of twins raised apart began in 1979 and was published in 1990.

There proved to be enough twins raised apart due to personal reasons so that Crick's suggestion of paying parents to give their twins up for adoption separately was not part of Bouchard's study. Indeed, today, Crick's idea sounds cruel, but that realization, paradoxically enough, dates largely from Bouchard's study, which included many joyous scenes of identical twins being reunited for the first time since early childhood. At the time Crick wrote, before the "Minnesota Twins" project he advocated, people were less aware of the emotional power of genetic similarity.

During Crick's exchanges with Edsall, he received an April 14, 1971 reply from famed Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, who was another signer of the anti-IQ research letter that Crick deplored. Mayr said, in part:

If I may summarize my own viewpoint, it is that positive eugenics is of great importance for the future of mankind and that all roadblocks must be removed that stand in the way of intensifying research in this area. Shockley with his racist views is unfortunately the worst roadblock at this time, at least in this country; hence, his sharp rejection by some of us who are very much in favor of positive eugenics.

To which, Crick replied:

21st April, 1971

Dr. Ernst Mayr
Harvard University
The Agassiz Museum
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
U.S.A.

Dear Ernst

I agree enthusiastically with practically everything you say, but I still feel that the present position which has arisen because of Shockley is unfortunate. What I would like to see is a good programme of research supported by people like yourself. You will have to reconcile yourself to the fact that whatever you do will have political implications and repercussion. Incidentally what do you think of my suggestion for a Twins Institute?

As to racism, what about negative racism? That is, the acceptance by Universities (like Harvard) of students with considerably lower standards merely because they are black. This policy is certainly going to lead to trouble. Either many of them will drop out, or they will have to be given degrees where white people would be failed. There was a recent article in Science about this.

I myself do not feel very strongly either way about the Black-White distinction. If I have a prejudice it is against the poor, and in favour of the rich, but such an attitude is almost equally unacceptable to most people.

Yours sincerely

F. H. C. Crick

Earlier, Crick had received a note from Lord C.P. Snow, the famous scientist and novelist, author of The Two Culture, asking him,

"Did you make some trenchant remarks recently on the radio about genetic factors in various kinds of individuals and groups destinies?"

Crick replied:

17 April 1969

Lord Snow
85 Gaton Terrace
London, S.W.l

Dear Charles

I gave a talk to University College on 'The Social Impact of Biology’ and the BBC subsequently broadcast a shortened version of it. As I covered a very broad range of topics I decided not to publish it, and no manuscript exists as I spoke from notes. As far as I remember I said that the biological evidence was that all men were not created equal, and it would not only be difficult to try to do this, but biologically undesirable. As an a[s]ide I said that the evidence for the equality of different races did not really exist. In fact, what little evidence there was suggested racial differences.

Had I enlarged on the subject I would have dwelt on the probable positive differences, such as, for example, the Jews and the Japs, rather than speak only about Negroes. From what I hear you have been saying something along these lines,, I would certainly love to see what you've written when you’re satisfied with it.

F.H.C. Crick

In a lengthy 1977 letter to Nobel Laureate Peter Medawar, Crick outlined his views on IQ and eugenics. He had this to say about one frequently cited figured on the anti-Jensen side

Lewontin, in particular, is known to be strongly politically biased and himself admits to being scientifically unscrupulous on these issues. That is, he takes them as political ones and therefore feels justified in the use of biased arguments.

My view on positive eugenics as a policy is that the Galtonians never had an answer to the challenge posed them in 1922 by G.K. Chesterton, in Eugenics and Other Evils. Chesterton pointed out that the "positive eugenics" of society arranging marriages among the most fit was self-defeating. If arranged marriages actually succeeded in breeding better men and women, the first thing these healthier, smarter, more robust individuals would do would be to tell society to butt out of arranging their marriages, and they'd go back to choosing their own mates!

Still, Chesterton's objection is far less valid, and Crick's concerns even more valid, when the question is the impact of immigration. Countries like Canada have a consciously positive selectionist immigration policy of trying to identify applicants who will most benefit the existing population while keeping out people who would be detrimental. In contrast, anybody who advocates that we Americans take a look at the Canadian perspective is likely to get called a Nazi.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

25 comments:

Evil Neocon said...

Steve -- none of this stuff exists in a vacuum. Part of the problem was that there was a long series of outright abuses that people react to emotionally and gives PC thinking it's power.

Prominent "Progressives" such as Margaret Sanger, Theodore Roosevelt, the first Chancellor of Stanford University promoted rather dubious "scientific" efforts to sterilize (against their will): Blacks, American Indians, "criminal" classes (basically lower-class whites). The Nuremberg Laws were based on California's "Progressive" era laws of forced sterilization which continued in one form or another well into the 1970's.

As a political reality, when Blacks see discussion of IQs they see a scheme to produce forced sterilization of Blacks and seethe. Understandably. The same will be true of American Indians, and lower income whites. Who were the primary victims of rather dubious "scientific" efforts to "improve the race."

Which amounts to using political power to allow children for rich, privileged whites and none for anyone else.

Forget the Nazis. This ugly history alone guarantees that any discussion of IQ and race will generate pushback and perhaps violent pushback. It's certainly understandable.

Add the Nazis to this, including "Master Race" stuff and the legacy of the holocaust and the political realities are understandable.

Any attempt to discuss race and IQ will have to as a matter of political reality address the fundamental political reality. Which in turn is the ugly legacy of "Progressive" reformers practicing eugenics. Which amounts to forced sterilization of anyone lacking political power.

Color of Crime said...

Maybe I missed it. I didn't see a link to the letter from Crick to Edsall.

Googling yielded this find:

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/N/M/_/scbbnm.pdf

skeptical said...

From one of Crick's letters in your blog entry:

"The main difficulty is that people have to start thinking out eugenics in a different way. The Nazis gave it a bad name and I think it is time something was done to make it respectable again."

And yet, 35+ years later, the situation has remained exactly the same.

Everything associated with racialist thought (including eugenics) in pre-WWII Western Civilization remains indelibly linked with the Nazis and the American KKK in our current age.

Evidently, the leftist thought police are still running the show.

David said...

Thanks Steve for making this available.

Wha? I'm shocked - shocked - to find that anyone stood up for Jensen. I guess we can throw Crick in the ashcan, too. Pseudo-scientist.

Stephen Jay Gould is emerging as the only pure and true scientist of the latter half of the 20th Century.

He didn't discover DNA or anything, but he did publish some cleverly written books. A genius!

Rick said...

"Evidently, the leftist thought police are still running the show."

If they are, they couldn't have wished for easier opponents: just look at the racist and anti-Jewish commenters who frequent this site. The sort of crowd these ideas attract today makes it easy for P.C. types to draw links to racists and anti-Semites of the past and discredit the pursuit of the field itself.

ben g said...

Say what you like about Steve, he's a great journalist for finding shit like this while the mainstream press sits on its ass.

Tony M said...

I'm too lazy to look, but it would be interesting to know if Crick and Watson remained in contact during this period and whether Watson was aware of Crick's opinion on the matter.

As many of Watson's critics pulled the he was never a first rate scientist hat out of the bag, it would have been a nice card for him to play.

dearieme said...

Two small points:
1. "Crick is usually considered the greater theoretical genius of the two" - I think I remember that Watson said that Crick was the cleverer.
2. They didn't, whatever the newspapers may say, dicover DNA. They discovered its molecular structure.

RobertHume said...

Crick's comment that "Moreover I think the social consequences of this are likely to be rather serious unless steps are taken to recognize the situation." is especially relevant today.

Assuming that the differences in average attainment between the races and sexes has led to social and personal anger, lost opportunities for both low and high IQ individuals, and vast sums of public money wasted.

We must completely restructure our educational establishment ... and get on the molecular eugenics wagon, if we are to have a happy and peaceful society.

MensaRefugee said...

Canada's policy aint that great from my perspective. Sure on paper on the smarties get in, but then the massive refugee stream (very few of them are refugees anyway, and those that are are generally not smarties anyway) negates that.

But then again I dont know about the US legal immigration procedures in general.

Martin said...

"David said...

Stephen Jay Gould is emerging as the only pure and true scientist of the latter half of the 20th Century.

He didn't discover DNA or anything, but he did publish some cleverly written books. A genius!"

Were they clever? I suppose they may have been. I wouldn't know, as I could never finish a book by Stephen Jay Gould. For though he may have written cleverly, he did not write well. His prose was among the most dense, rococco, and obtuse I have ever attempted to read.

"Tony M said...

As many of Watson's critics pulled the he was never a first rate scientist hat out of the bag, it would have been a nice card for him to play.

1/13/2008"

Did that in fact happen? I wasn't paying to much attention to the episode, other than what I read on this site. If so, that's truly amazing. It would take a lot of gaul for a journalist - a mere journalist - to claim that Watson really wasn't that big a deal as a scientist anyways. I mean, the Nobel Prize.....that's supposed to indicate something, isn't it?

skeptical said...

rick,

You said:

"If they are, they couldn't have wished for easier opponents: just look at the racist and anti-Jewish commenters who frequent this site. The sort of crowd these ideas attract today makes it easy for P.C. types to draw links to racists and anti-Semites of the past and discredit the pursuit of the field itself."

Do you think racialist thought in Western Civilization (pre-WWII) should be indelibly linked with the Nazis and KKK?

What Steve is pointing out on his blog is that eminent scientists from a different era (like James Watson and Francis Crick) supported positions that we now almost exclusively associate with the Nazis. And is this current situation fair to researchers in the mold of Watson, Crick, Lynn, or Jensen?

Would you describe any of the preceding scientists as being unhinged and hate-filled? Because that's how the media likes to portray them...

Anonymous said...

On the power of genetic similarity, this news just in from the beeb:

Parted-at-birth twins 'married'

Svigor said...

Bit circular Rick, don't you think?

ben tillman said...

The sort of crowd these ideas attract today makes it easy for P.C. types to draw links to racists and anti-Semites of the past and discredit the pursuit of the field itself.

No, the control of the apparatus of public opinion formation makes it easy for the "P.C. types" to draw links between anyone and anything for any reason or no reason at all.

RobertHume said...

Another quote of Crick's, presumably the kind of thing known only to insiders like Crick:

"Lewontin, in particular, is known to be strongly politically biased and himself admits to being scientifically unscrupulous on these issues. That is, he takes them as political ones and therefore feels justified in the use of biased arguments."

This shows that us on the realist side have given far too much good faith to those on the other side. Hence we must cease arguing in good face and must not hesitate to launch ad-hominem attacks on the other side, as they do to us. I don't know, however, that we will be able to make up data as they do ... just too imbued with fair play, I'm afraid.

Qliphoth said...

"If they are, they couldn't have wished for easier opponents: just look at the racist and anti-Jewish commenters who frequent this site. The sort of crowd these ideas attract today makes it easy for P.C. types to draw links to racists and anti-Semites of the past and discredit the pursuit of the field itself."

Racism consists of things like equating ethnicity with nationality (something traditionally done almost everywhere), preferring one's own kind (probably a genetically hardwired behavior), and denying strident leftist claims of racial equality (an empirical matter). So why is it wrong? Because bespectacled wise men have decreed it immoral? Because it makes Jesus angry? Antisemitism is any negatively critical talk of Jews. Unless we are to assume that Jewish interests are automatically aligned with everyone else's, why is antisemitism automatically wrong?

You say (in other words) that conservatives with politically incorrect views are giving the left ammunition. Maybe so, but the notion that leftists would be more reasonable if we didn't is codswallop. Respectable conservatives already tried appeasement with the neocons, but the neocons never relented, and respectable conservativism has become a travesty of what it once was. The only reason why our thoughts serve as ammunition is because leftists control the prevailing moral oder. It is a situation akin to an unbeliever being sentenced to burn at the stake for heresy, and then being scolded by others for giving the priests ammunition with all that talk of atheism.

RKU said...

Here's a question...

The Monstrously Evil KKK has got to be totally acknowledged as the second most Monstrously Evil organization in the entire history of the universe (after the More Monstrously Evil Nazis, of course).

But I've always been a little curious about how many people the Monstrously Evil KKK (and its closely related organizations) actually killed/murdered (say) during the last 100 years.

I vaguely recall there's some Civil Rights monument somewhere with the names of all the blacks killed the Glorious Struggle, and it was around 87 or something, but I might be wrong.

Anyway, by the wonders of non-Euclidean geometry, that number's obviously a much, much bigger deal than the 100M or so killed worldwide by the Communists...

Evil Neocon said...

Except those eminent scientists also supported forced sterilization of anyone deemed "inferior" which essentially meant less politically powerful.

That's the ugly legacy of Race-IQ discussions dating back to the early Progressives in the 1910's.

Shrug. We ought to be able to discuss race and IQ but that's the history.

skeptical said...

"Shrug. We ought to be able to discuss race and IQ but that's the history."

"History" is far more complicated than the brutalities of a few.

Racialism took a plethora of varying forms in pre-WWII Western Civilization. To construct our history over this time period by only focusing on the very worst elements is to engage in the kind of thought-control brainwashing we have today, where people pavlovianly mention "The Nazis/KKK/Hitler" anytime questions of Race & IQ come to the surface.

Anonymous said...

evil neocon

Your just parroting the popular political interpretation of eugenics, and you’re wrong (again).

So “eminent scientists also supported forced sterilization of anyone ‘inferior’ which essentially meant less politically powerful”. Can you define who the less politically powerful were around 1910? Are you referring to the mass forced sterilization of disenfranchised women, children, many blacks in the south and non-English speaking immigrants by the American Academy of Science? Is “that the history” as you image it?

No, eugenics wasn’t an evil political tool to oppress the less politically powerful. It was primarily promoted by “eminent scientists” as a way to enhance “public hygiene” by reducing the incidence of genetically-linked illnesses like mental retardation. You just pulled that political and race card out of your ass as per your custom here.

Now if you critiqued the eugenics promoted by eminent scientists on the morality of individual rights, medical ethics and the like you wouldn’t come across as such an ill-informed PC axe grinder.

rbc said...

"While any present conclusions are tentative, it seems likely that the matter could be largely resolved if further research were carried out. ... The most distressing feature of your letter is that it neither gives nor refers to any scientific arguments, but makes unsupported statements of opinion, This, I need hardly remind you, is politics, not science. The voice of established authority, unsupported by evidence or argument, should have no place in science. ---F.H. Crick"

Hallelujah! The only way to learn the truth about anything is by performing experiments. This is why Arthur Jensen is a great scientist: he constantly collects new data and reanalyzes old, and he lets the data determine his opinions, consequences be damned. His ideas on individual variation in intelligence are more likely to be right than anyone else's not because of what they are, but because the process by which he arrived at them is more scientifically rigorous than anyone else's has ever been. Jensen, Bouchard, and many other eminent scientists in the IQ field are in fact politically rather liberal, and are to some degree disturbed or even horrified by what they have learned experimentally about human nature -- but they allow their view of the the way the world really is to be determined by the data they collected, not their preference for what they would like it to have been instead.

Regardless of whether you are a liberal or a conservative, whether you are racist or not, the only sane way to construct any kind of social policy is to first find out what the world is really like, rather than simply hope it is the way you'd like it to be. Wherever you want to go, you must first discover where you are before you can determine how to get there from here. That is why, no matter how it may have been used before, increased IQ research is the only moral way forward -- any successful policy for dealing with human beings must be based on a rational, apolitical, scientific analysis of how real human beings actually think, which is precisely what population statistics of intelligence are all about.

Svigor said...

If they are, they couldn't have wished for easier opponents: just look at the racist and anti-Jewish commenters who frequent this site. The sort of crowd these ideas attract today makes it easy for P.C. types to draw links to racists and anti-Semites of the past and discredit the pursuit of the field itself.

I can never tell if this "argument" is honest balderdash, or a not-so-subtle attempt at behavior modification, or neither, or what.

Ah, who cares. It's BALDERDASH. Otherwise, "anti-racism" and cosmopolitanism (and leftism in general) would have been utterly destroyed by their associations (Gulags, etc.) long ago.

WHO? WHOM? The difference is who runs the media. Period. Full stop.

When you get up to the bird's eye level, all that matters is who's controlling the levers; he's the one who gets to decide if the sheep believe in eugenics, or "anti-racism," or Martian canals.

JJ said...

There may be other monuments, but this one at the SPLC lists several dozen.
http://www.splcenter.org/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs

James K said...

The exception to Canadian immigration policy is Quebec, whose priority is whether a potential immigrant speaks French. This criterion allows immigration by a lot of people who might otherwise be considered "detrimental" to Canada.

I wonder how many of the Canadians who have committed terror attacks entered the country this way.