Natives, Griswold Leslie

I have been pondering the strange “debating techniques” employed by
Canada’s own Mr. Griswold for some time, and thought it might be
instructive to re-examine his comments. It is my hope that they might
shed some small light on the chappie’s viewpoints, particularly as
regards racism and Canada’s First Nations.

My curiosity began with the following statement, which Mr. Griswold
shared with users in alt.skinheads:

Yep, just absolutely kills me. It also peeves me that
wagon-burners can claim to be “Canadian” further back than I
can. (Griswold, Lester’s)

When Bill Stuart pointed out that “Indians in Canada didn’t burn
wagons,” Mr. Griswold responded with the following observation…

No, but “wagon-burner” is a much catchier epithet than “woman
raper and child torturer”.

Sadly, no-one questioned Mr. Griswold’s assertion that Canada’s First
Nations peoples burned wagons, raped women, and tortured children. Had
they done so, it now seems apparent, it would have been to no avail.
Mr. Griswold, it seems, is strong on asking questions, and, er, weak
on answering them…

To Mr. Stuart’s comment that “Canada did not exist back when there was
a serious conflict between indians and non-indians,” Mr. Griswold’s
considered response was…

No, but White men did. (Griswold, Ghandi, 7 Jan. 1995)

Mr. Griswold, alas, didn’t expand upon this curious statement, leaving
50,000,000 Internet users quite in the dark… over the next few days,
however, Mr. Griswold did deign enlighten those users with regard to
his knowledge of affairs political:

It’s a real shame, isn’t it, that a beautiful country like
Australia is being wasted on those miserable chinks, not to
mention the Aborigines? It’s almost as pathetic as thinking
about the Indians having Canada. (Griswold, Hey)

Mr. Griswold, it would appear, has little respect for the Chinese.
The Australian Aboriginal.
The Canadian Native.

Sure, Starkman. I guess the only way to get your hescher of
approval would be to suck up to the damned “schwartzes”.
You’d rather attack a White man’s intelligence than a nigger’s
proven stupidity. (Griswold, Re: Lester’s)

The Black.

Not to be disssuaded from his quest for historial truth, however, Mr.
Griswold quickly returns to his subject of choice – the population of
Canada’s First Nations peoples:

If we wiped ’em out, why are there still so many of them here?
In fact, there are more Indians now than there were when
Columbus landed (don’t believe me? Check how much Listerine
is being sold) (Griswold, Ghandi)

Mr. Griswold, receiving a response to this brilliant reparte,
adds this further reinforcement of his demand for accurate data:

Nice flame, Ghandi, but I notice that you didn’t answer the
question, which was, if we wiped out the Indians, why are
there so many of them? (Griswold, Re: Ghandi, 7 Jan. 1995)

As we can see, however, Mr. Griswold somehow neglected to answer his
own question…. soon, however, he clearly outlines the importance
which he attaches to his own question, by repeating it yet again:

That’s a pretty good one too, Toddy, but my original question
remains strangely unanswered: if we slaughtered the Indians,
WHY are there so many of them now? (Griswold, Re: Ghandi, 8
Jan. 1995)

Mr. Griswold now demonstrates that he is ignorant as to the Native
population statistics, in spite of his repeated question, which now
begins to appear as somewhat ill-considered.. in short, Mr. Griswold
hasn’t a clue:

Well, no shit, Sherlock. Why don’t you put that in absolute
numbers? Lesse, here, 2% of 29 million, that’s about 580,000.
How many were there when they were 100% of the population?
(Griswold, Re: Ghandi, 10 Jan. 1995)

In response to my query about pre-immigration Native population
vrs. present Native population, Mr. Griswold demonstrates that he
has not yet fallen victim to Raven’s Myopia – he did indeed see my

In a previous posting, Ken Mcvay ([email protected]) writes:

> Two questions: First, how many were there when the white man came?
> Second: how many are there now?

> What a specious question, Mr. Griswold.

Which question are you calling “specious”?

Second, I think that the question is very valid, in light of
how people whine and kvetch about how we “slaughtered” the
Indians. (Griswold, Native)

Since my original query, in which I asked Mr. Griswold for a few
simple facts, in the hope he was prepared to support his allegations,
Mr. Griswold seems to have developed Raven’s Myopia. In spite of
my having asked him, on at least seven occasions, those same questions,
i.e. “How many were there before the white man came,” and “How many
are there now,” Mr. Griswold remains strangely silent – particularly
in light of the following:

You can’t expect people like J. White to present ALL the
facts, just the ones that make their arguments look valid.
(Griswold, Re: welfare)

Mr. Griswold:

Since the quote above quite clearly places you in that select group of
folks who insist upon “ALL the facts,” I call upon you now to respond
to two simple questions:

1. How many Natives were there on this continent before the white
folks arrived, and

2. How many are there now?

It is interesting to note that, on the 26th. of March, 1995, when
accused of evasion with regard to the questions above, Mr.
Griswold’s only response was:

No. I just don’t care. Exact numbers aren’t relevant (except in the
case of the sacred “Holocaust”, apparently); the effects of their
lobbying IS. (Griswold, Re: Ken McVay)

So, after harping on the Native population issue again and again,
making it clearly seem that the matter was of no small importance,
Mr. Griswold now “doesn’t care.”

Work Cited

Griswold, Les. UseNet alt.skinheads. Subject: “Ghandi the dick-drip,”
Sat, 7 Jan 1995, Message-ID: [email protected]

————-. UseNet alt.skinheads. Subject: “Ghandi the
dick-drip,” 7 Jan 1995, Message-ID: [email protected]

————-. UseNet alt.skinheads. Subject: “Re: Ghandi the dick-drip,”
Sat, 7 Jan 1995, Message-ID: [email protected]

————-. UseNet alt.skinheads. Subject: “Re: Ghandi the dick-drip,”
Sun, 8 Jan 1995, Message-ID: [email protected]

————-. Subject: “Re: Ghandi the dick-drip,” Tue, 10 Jan 1995,
Message-ID: [email protected]

————-. UseNet alt.skinheads. Subject: “Re: Hey Bill…,”
Fri, 6 Jan 1995, Message-ID: [email protected]

————-. UseNet alt.skinheads. Subject: “Re: Lester’s sig
line,” Fri, 6 Jan 1995, Message-ID: [email protected]

————-. UseNet alt.skinheads. Subject: “Re: Lester’s sig line,”
Fri, 6 Jan 1995. Message-ID: [email protected].

————-. UseNet alt.revisionism. Subject: “Re: Ken McVay, victim
of the same myopia he sees in others,” Sun, 26 Mar 1995, Message-ID:
[email protected]

————-. UseNet alt.skinheads. Subject: “Re: Native population,
then and now,” Thu, 12 Jan 1995, Message-ID: [email protected]

————-. UseNet alt.skinheads. Subject: “Re: welfare,” Thu, 12 Jan 1995,
Message-ID: [email protected]

N.B. The articles noted in the above section are available via
anonymous ftp, from, in the directory

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.
Subject: Les Griswold: Raven’s Myopia? (Month 22)
Summary: Les Griswold, apparently mistaking alt.skinheads for alt.
pinheads, makes a fool of himself…
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Distribution: world
Organization: The Nizkor Project

Archive/File: people/g/griswold.les natives

[Followups to alt.revisionism]