Heriberto Escamilla Ph.D.

    On Sunday, June 27th, members of the Mexican National team staggered off the field of Ellis Park Stadium in Johan-nesburg, South Africa. A few had a final choice words for referee Rossetti of Italy, whose non-call in the first period put  Maradona’s boys  up by what turned out to be a fateful, demoralizing goal. A dreadful error by distracted fullback Ricardo Osorio added to the insult. A brilliant strike by Tevez sealed the South American victory, handing the Mexicans their 5th consecutive second round departure. The loss to Argentina landed the Tricolor in the 14th position of FIFA’s worldwide rankings. Curiously enough, before the World Cup, when Mexican coach Javier Aguirre, commonly known as “El Vasco” was asked about Mexico’s chances of a 2010 World Cup Championship, he simply point-ed out the past. The always candid Aguirre noted something like, for the last 20 years Mexico has finished somewhere in the 14th or 15th position, why should we expect any different? The remark brought instant and harsh criticism for the son of Spanish immigrants. So was this a case of clairvoyance, brilliant soccer acumen, or perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy?

    Since its creation Mexico, like most other countries has seen its share of martial highs and lows. There is a curious pattern that emerges to this humble student of history, which differs a little from Aguirre’s assessment and may shed some light on its recent debacle. True, we are speaking of soccer and not war, but who will argue that our modern sports are not a form of ritualized warfare? And the World Cup, does it not pit country against country in a test of strength, courage and agility; the ingredients of combat? What could be more fear provoking than standing alone at the penalty mark with 100,000 people imploring the gods to break your legs? For those that doubt the connection of this sport and a country’s politics, I recommend a quick read of by Frank Foer.

    But let’s get back to the pattern that I spoke of, which is that is that Mexicans have always fared better following Mexican leaders, duh. In 1810, when Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla issued his Grito heard around the world, it was Mestizo and indigenous ears that heard it most clearly. The ten-year struggle for independence was successful because it brought together the landowning Criollos, powerful clergy AND the many sons of Hernan Cortes and Doña Marina. Ethnographers and genealogists estimate that between 70 to 80 percent of the men born in Mexico carry Y-DNA that traces back to Western European or Semitic origins and maternally-based mitochondrial DNA of Indigenous roots; most Mexicans are Mestizos. 

    Thirty years later when Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, the self-proclaimed Napoleon of the West was busy losing Mexico’s Northwest Territories, the Mestizo and Indigenous masses could have cared less. As the American general Zachary Taylor gallantly marched his troops toward Chapultepec, Mexicans probably stopped their ox- driven plows, paused for a few seconds to admire the horses and simply went back to work. To Mexico’s masses, one white patron was probably the same as another. In fact, in the Spring of 1847, when the Stars and Stripes greeted the morning sun from the top of the Zocalo, Mexico City’s residents were shocked! Why? The masses never knew their country was at war! And those that may have known about the war probably could not see the difference between a Mexican Criollo and an American Imperialist; one patron was the same as the other. 

    This may have been what the French thought a few years later. The Mexican people are apathetic; they don’t care and in fact, they may welcome us with open arms. Now, where have I heard that before? El Emperador Maximiliano very quickly saw, I say quickly because he literally lost his head, that Mexico indeed had a heart. The French army was soundly defeated, not by well-equipped regular army, but once again by Mexico’s machete-wielding Mestizo and indigenous masses. And leading that attack was Mexico’s first Indian president. It was Don Benito’s ability to appreciate, inspire and attract all of Mexico’s people that made the difference. 

    A lot of people wonder about Aguirre’s decisions. Perhaps his most questionable were what seemed to be a capricious denial of Javier Hernandez, El Chicarito and Andres Guardado, despite their obvious success with their respective teams. At 1.75 (5’ 9″) and 1.75 (5’7″) meters respectively, these two are among the shortest on the current Mexican team.  At 1.82 Guillermo Franco is the tallest of the strikers and seemed to be Aguirre’s favorite, even though he has had very little playing time and probably saw the top of the hill a few years back. Now here, I can understand Aguirre’s reasoning. He preferred people that have the stature to play against the taller American and European players. But maybe in his obsession with matching stature, he overlooked other more important qualities?

    The French under Maximiliano, no doubt taller and better equipped were defeated not with overpowering instruments of war, but with the palos, picos and machetes swung by shorter Mexicans with ferocious passion. Of the best soccer players of our time, Maradona, Romario, or Messi, Pele is the tallest at 5’8″ and even England’s Rooney barely breaks 5’9″. The average height of a Mexican male is 5’4″; Mexicans are short; we do not fit the European mold and the World Cup is about soccer. We may sweat with every corner kick, but our opponents should be equally concerned when the ball is rolling on the ground, which is 90% of the game. It seems to me that a Mexican coach should see that and take measure of a player’s heart, not only his physical stature.

    And speaking of Mexican Revolution, who aroused the masses over land reform? Who else but a Mestizo son of a Nahua mother would put la Madre Tierra before anything else? Madera may have had an idea, but it was Zapata’s integrity that brought the masses out. The revolution had some measure of success because the masses once more rose up and courageously gave their hearts. Perhaps things might be different today if it had been Juarez or Zapata and not the Harvard educated economist Salinas de Gortari sitting across from the American presidents that negotiated NAFTA. Can’t you just see Don Emiliano sitting on the Mexican bench, fist in the air, demanding Tierra y Justicia! And in 2014, can’t you see Benito Juarez barking out instructions to a Giovanni Dos Santos streaking past the Brazilian defense.

    Mexico needs a coach with a Mexican heart, one that sees, appreciates and believes in who he leads and not one that attempts to mold people into something that they are not, and more importantly don’t want to be. But maybe successful leadership has nothing to do with nationality. In fact, inspiring greatness from others may call for an ability to look beyond the obvious, beyond skin color, stature, gender and appreciate that which may not be as evident.