Talk:José Ángel Gutiérrez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I am a white female who attended law school with Jose Angel Gutierrez at Southern Methodist University during the 1985-1986 school year. My closest friend was a female hispanic law student who had known Jose for many years, and she is the one who introduced us and tried to convince me he was an activist worth getting to know. Mr. Gutierrez was haughty and treated me with disdain from the first; over the course of several conversations it became clear that he was a 'hater' of the highest order. He hates women, and he especially hates non-hispanics. By the end of the year Mr. Gutierrez even went so far as to chastize my friend that she was 'a traitor to their race' by being friends with me, a 'gringo.' Finally, Mr. Gutierrez filed a highly contentious employment discrimination lawsuit against UTA in the late 1990's: it's been a long time since I reviewed the pleadings, but it was my opinion from the wording of the allegations that he was simply 'race-baiting' in order to get more money and advantages. What, really, has the man done to deserve a listing in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This man is an obvious racist and anti-semite.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Are Human Rights Watch or any other sundry reality-impaired left-wing organizations going to demand a retraction?

Why? Whose human rights has he violated?

Is there any verifiable evidence of the 1994 Chicano Hero Award, supposedly received by Gutierrez? I've been looking for it, and haven't found anything reliable. (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a lot of self-promotion on this page. No info on controversies involving him and alleged quotes. AJH (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are most likely manufactured by Anti-Illegal Alien groups who are trying to frame the illegal immigration issue as battle between righteous "civilized" White Americans and "racist" Mexicans.

There should at least be a section that states his controversial comments. They are well documented and have been recorded

Your .jpg is a doctored image, not a document showing proof of any controversy.

-Was this audio doctored as well???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not having a section like this is like having a Wiki on Hilter and leaving out the holocaust —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What proof do you have that Mr. Gutierrez committed mass genocide on a scale comparable to Hitler? Oh that's right, you want to the page to reflect your race-baiting hyperbole.
says the person who won’t reveal who they are2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:2D60:850E:8180:D2B5 (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this race baiting or just hate mongering from a evil, disturbed man-

Strange how Mel Gibsons rants are allowed on Wiki but not this man's. Has Wiki lost all integrity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing strange about it since Mel's comments have been documented by Law Enforcement officers whom Mel directed his tirades towards.
I don’t know who you are but you might want to identify yourself.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:2D60:850E:8180:D2B5 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I found some more documented hate speech from this man " "We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him." and "Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes." Audio can be found here —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The irony is that most of these "professional Chicanos" (Rudy Acuña is a more extreme example) are clearly of Spanish descent. They are the descendants of white invaders, and flaunt their white Spanish names and language. Their light skin and upper class origins (Gutierrez is not the son of migrants but of exiles from the Mexican Revolution) enabled them to pursue college educations and assert a paternalistic leadership role. They denounce the system but - please don't take away their state-funded tenured position, pension, and office. If José Gutierrez really walked his talk, he would shed his conquistador name, speak Nahuatl, ditch the white institutions he serves, and make common cause with Native Americans. Real Mexicano leaders are people such as Cesar Chavez, who knew what it was like to work the land, had brown skin, never sought an government position, and never preached hate (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Washington Times quote[edit]

“We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population,” Jose Angel Gutierrez, political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, said on the videotape.

The part in the quotation marks is what we have reproduced from this portion of the Washington Times article referenced.

I have seen this quote as part of a larger statement some web sites have attributed to JAG, which if true, gives the impression that they left out a somewhat inflammatory statement which immediately followed where they ended their quote. That said, I do not know if any continuations of the quote have been reliably sourced or not has discussed the rumor of "I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it" coming after, but the audio clip they located of Jose saying the portion the Times quoted at apparently did not include that alleged continuation. I am not able to load the file and was wondering if anyone else was able to or if it might exist elsewhere for a listen. I would like to get an impression as if it sounds as if Gutierrez were done speaking after saying "the explosion is in our population" or if it sounded like he had more to say and was cut off.

One controversial page at not only adds the 'shitting' portion which Snopes was not able to verify, but also attributes "We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him." to him as a following sentence immediately after that.

I noticed while copying this text that in white they list an alleged reference for internal use, normally invisible due to white text: but this page is not active and when I checked on wayback, there is no archive because of robots.txt preventing crawling.

Both the 'shitting' and 'got to kill him' quotes sound made-up to me. If he had said this immediately after the audio file, I am perplexed why the audio recording of it would not have surfaced by now. If not from a recording then where would people have learned this?

Based on the lack of reliable sourcing I think unless evidence surfaces, ending the quote where the Washington Times does is the right move. But being that these additional sentences are circulating on the web and being attributed to JAG, it makes me wonder if these memes might be notable enough to discuss on his article. Should we discuss how people have modified the quote and made unsupported additions to it, and repeated these additions? I initially looked into this because I saw an infographic circulating with the quote and it seemed odd. You can see it displayed at published 23 July 2014. The earliest record I know of it is circulating it since 11 September 2002 according to

There is a conspicuous " . . . " connecting "They are dying" with "They are *** in their pants" (not sure why the asterisks in this case) and even more conspicuous is the "We have got to eliminate the gringo" quote is under a separate set of quotation brackets.

The infographic seen in the 2014 BeforeItsNew article gives the impression that it is one continuous quote, something not originally done by AmericanPatrol. Is it possible that these were 3 distinct things said at differnet times/locations which might explain the absence in the audio file?

Even so, my guess is AmericanPatrol is not a reliable source, and given that the StopTheInvasion site they reference as supporting the quote is not accessible, I can see no means of researching whether it is reliable. But the idea that people are simply parroting unsourced quotes like this to attack the man may be noteable in and of itself. from 30 March 2006 for example focuses on that "we have got to eliminate the gringo" line. NewsWithViews is also probably not considered a reliable source, but if a mass amount of sources (even unreliable ones) keep attributing a quote, it just makes me wonder if this is something worth debunking on the page. Otherwise people might get the impression that we're intentionally not addressing the ideas, rather than simply not including them for lack of reliable sourcing.

Digging further associates the alleged "we have got to kill the gringo" quote with a 1969 San Antonio speech. They link to an article attributed to Jaime Contreras which discusses a school boycott in January 1969 but the only mention I see of gringo is "kill the gringo" cries, not the exact "we have got to kill the gringo" statement above.

It also links to which is a 5 June 2004 article attributed to Allan Wall of which says:

Back then, Gutierrez said
"We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."
Later, Gutierrez told The San Antonio Express and News (April 11th, 1969) that the term “Gringo” referred to a bigoted and racist individual or institution. And “kill” just meant the elimination of the political, economic and social foundation of “the Gringo.”

It seems the key thing to find here then is the alleged 11 April 1969 article with TSAEAN paper. If it indeed has them discussing the meaning of nouns/verbs in a speech it would go a ways to verifying it.

At searching "Jose Angel" I got one result. Folder 0018073 refers to "Gutierrez, Jose Angel: at Commissioners Court 04/1969" which sounds about right.

It seems that Wall's claim of there being an April 1969 interview with JAG by the San Antonio Express-News is correct, although I am still interested in reading exactly what it said before drawing conclusions about what quotes from that article imply about a speech which occurred January 1969.

Unfortunately I do not know how to access photographs from this collection. It sounds like you need to contact the guy and request access to the paper. I don't know if laymen can do this or if you would need to be a reporter yourself to do so. Would be interested in knowing who did the April 1969 interview and what the dialogue was. (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose cite for Controversial Statements section[edit]

Since the article is locked to IPs, I will submit a proposed reference for a new quote here from the University of Texas at Arlington from 2006, archived in 2007, pertaining to 1969 statements.

Diehl, Kemper (26 April 2006). "STATEMENTS BY JOSE ANGEL GUTIERREZ, SAN ANTONIO EVENING NEWS, APRIL 11, 1969". Archived from the original on 17 September 2007. A person or an institution who has a certain policy or program or attitudes that reflect bigotry, racism, discord and prejudice and violence. 

This has him answering how he defines a gringo. If not relevant here then it might be relevant to the gringo article itself, reflecting changes in use over time.

That said, I can't actually find evidence of this line circulated in 2002 which I see was mentioned on Wikipedia above in a 2011 post:

We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.

There is discussion of killing gringos in this article but just not in these exact words.

Reporter: What was meant by the phrase eliminate the gringos in the MAYO statement?
Gutierrez: You can eliminate an individual in various ways. You can certainly kill him, but that is not our intent at the moment. You can remove the basis of support that he operates from, be it economic, political, or social. That is what we intend to do.
Reporter: If nothing else works you are going to kill all the gringos?
Gutierrez: We will have to find out if nothing else will work.
Reporter: And then you are going to kill us all?
Gutierrez: If it doesn’t work. I would like to add to you that if you label yourself a gringo then you are one of the enemy.

What the reporter talks about in the MAYO statement is from the day prior, 10 April 1969:

"We realize that the effects of cultural genocide takes many forms some Mexicanos will become psychologically castrated, others will become demagogues and gringos as well as others will come together, resist and eliminate the gringo. We will be with the latter."

So while this does support the "eliminate the gringo" bit existing in 1969, it does not support the "if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him" bit.

As this was attributed to a January 1969 speech, its absence in the following April 1969 statements (the MAYO statement on the 10th, the Evening-News interview with JAG on the 11th) is not by necessity conspicuous. But it does make one wonder if the latter attributed statement might just be someone paraphrasing the interview that JAG gave rather than quoting him verbatim. "If worst comes to the worst" resembles the "if nothing else will work" or "if it doesn't work" answers he gave, for example, but I don't know why someone would bother to change that. Which makes me wonder if IFCTTW was what was said in the January 1969 protest or not. Unless there is video from January I do not know how to verify or disprove it. Does anyone know any news articles which covered it? This April interview does not appear to do so, instead focusing on the subsequent Mexican Youth Organization (aka MAYO, not sure where A comes from...) statement released 3 months later.

As such, I think the impression that JAG was explaining words he spoke at a speech in January is wrong, he is clearly explaining the words MAYO used in an April written document. (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on José Ángel Gutiérrez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)