Talk:Tex-Mex/Archive 1

Archive 1

WTH?

You can not find true Tex-Mex in Arizona or New Mexico or even in some parts of West Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.67.254 (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Old discussions

Tortilla chips and salsa as appetizers are not Tex-Mex cuisine originals. They are truly mexican cuisine originals. They are called "tostadas" in Mexico. Actually, the main Tortilla chip article states it. Xicoav (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the references to restaurants because I don't believe that a Wikipedia article should be advertising for chains (there were links to the Chuy's website for crying out loud!). It looks like one of the restaurants had someone write the article if it's included.

Edited the reference to tortilla chips and salsa being an appetizer "Texan diners insist on." as it seems to be an unfounded generalization. While a certain segment of Texans may demand tortilla chips, it's inappropriate to assume that the majority of Texans do. JEJoyce 04:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

References

This article could use some more references. For example "Outside of Texas, Tex-Mex is often used to mean inauthentic and therefore undesirable, or low-class Mexican food. " This has not been true in my experience. I live in Illinois, and the term Tex-Mex has almost always been used as a distinct regional style. If the person who originally posted this finds the statement to be true in other situations, they should be more specific, and preferably back it up with some sort of evidence.74.136.196.20 18:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of us who live in Texas are trying to show others what real Tex-Mex is. Having lived in San Antonio and Dallas for 20 years, I have compiled may recipes that have been used over and over. I feel that advertising chain restaurants like Ninfa's, Casa Olé, Chuy's, Taco Cabana, Taco Bell and other national chains is an insult to the Tex-Mex Cuisines. When we tried to show people where real Tex-Mex recipes are, they were edited out, instantly.

As for External Links, Wikipedia uses the rel="nofollow" tag that makes this a non-SEO link. Each of the current site refer to their site. Why can't I?

Nice one-sided editing. Catanich 00:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

More references? This article could use some more facts, period. This article, and the article on southwestern cuisine are both quite factually incorrect. I've not been to some of the restaurants given as examples of Tex Mex, but the ones I've been to, especially Chipotle Mexican Grill, its clone Qdoba, and Chili's, are shining examples of Northern Anglicized versions of southwestern cuisine and have little to nothing in common with Tex Mex or Mexican cuisine. This leads me to suspect that the entire list is that of someone quite unfamiliar with the subject. I mean, Taco Bell, really? Might as well list McDonald's as a fine steak house. Jkhamlin (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

¡ ¡ ¿ Low-Class ? ! !

¿Que? ¡¡¿Inauthentic?!! ¡¡¿Undesirable?!! ¡¡¿Low-Class?!! According to whom? I beg to differ. I live in San Antonio, and our restauraunt business thrives on tourism. Many of these out of state and out of country, visitors think highly enough of Tex-Mex to make special pilgrimages to visit famous eateries such as Mi Tierra, La Margarita, Don Pedro, La Fogata, and Pico de Gallo. All of these restaurants are thriving, established, independently and/or family-owned, I might add, and not the touristy, chain eateries mentioned the article.

The link to A Six Part History of Tex-Mex was added by User:Nv8200p on August 8, 2003. This link has remained unchallenged since then. The linked article states that Tex-Mex is "... a success. For the rest of the world, 'Tex-Mex' had an exciting ring. It evoked images of cantinas, cowboys and the Wild West. Dozens of Tex-Mex restaurants sprang up in Paris, and the trend spread across Europe and on to Bangkok, Buenos Aires and Abu Dhabi. Tortilla chips, margaritas and chili con carne are now well-known around the world." It goes on to "reconsider Tex-Mex in light of its international reputation as America's most popular regional cuisine."

I am removing the second whole paragraph which begins with "Outside of Texas", describes Tex-Mex cuisine as "inauthentic" "undesirable" and "low-class", and ends with "deep roots".

Edits are always welcomed and new users are encouraged to "be bold". Please remember, though, that rudeness is not acceptable. Also, don't forget, as User:74.136.196.20 has already mentioned, to back up edits with references.

A Tex-Mex cuisine afficianado - Chicaneo 07:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Americanized Mexican food"

I don't know ...

Are we talking about "Americanized" as in integrated with cuisines of indigenous peoples of North America (which, by the way, includes Canada, the United States, and Mexico)? This region is often referred to as the "New World", "The Americas", or simply "America".

Or are we talking about "Americanized" as in merging with cuisines of the Anglo-American culture?

The article states that Tex-Mex food has Spanish, Native American, Canary Islander, and Northern Mexican influences. So ... I'm not sure why Tex-Mex is the "term used to describe Americanized Mexican food". The only specific example referencing the term Americanized is that the use of yellow cheese was an added element.

Could we start a discussion on this? I hope I'm not nit-picking here. It's just that the term "Americanized" doesn't seem to fit.

Chicaneo 07:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see what you're getting at and perhaps there is more rephrasing that needs to happen. But I think the basic point is correct.

As far as in what sense "American" is meant it means Texas and, depending on who is using the term, some surrounding regions of the U.S.

Regarding the influences from other cultures, by the definition you are implying you could argue that there is no such thing as American cuisine since this is a young country and all our cuisine has recent influences from external cultures.

The point is that, regardless of the external influences, the foods were invented in the U.S., Texas mostly. And they are sufficiently unique to be considered a cuisine in their own right.

--Mcorazao 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Tex-Mex as well as Cal-Mex, New Mexican Cuisine and any other food originating in the American Southwest IS Mexican food, according to most culinary anthropologists. The problem is, modern Mexico no longer encompasses those areas due to the fracture and conquest of Northern Mexico which began with the establishment of the Republic of Texas and ended with the Gadsen Purchase. The food, however, predates the new borders.

The idea that food from what used to be two-thirds of the then extant Republic of Mexico is "inauthentic" and not Mexican, or worse yet that it is derivative of or a bastardization of "true" Mexican food is an argument towards cultural purity which is unacceptable in any light.

Those who argue for the naming of Tex-Mex as a distinct cuisine aren't claiming, as Mcorazao does, that Tex-Mex deserves to be considered a cuisine. They're claiming, using exactly his logic, that it DOESN'T deserve to be called Mexican cuisine, because, well, Gringos eat it. Forget that many of those Gringos have ancestors who've lived in those places since they were part of Mexico. And forget that the Tejanos and Aztlanians (which sounds all Brown Power, I know, but bear with me) who invented it were Spanish speaking mestizos.

The point is, the only claim "true" mexican food holds on the title is that it is eaten in modern Mexico. Right. Sounds like a strong claim, if you don't think about it. But that's like saying Bourbon whiskey can only come from modern Bourbon County, Kentucky (which is a tiny county in eastern Kentucky that doesn't distill a drop of commercial whiskey). Problem is, Bourbon whiskey has always been defined as coming from within the 1790 borders of Bourbon County (which is about 2/3 of the State of Kentucky). That's because the tradition existed way back in 1790 and the way of making whiskey hasn't changed. The new border is irrelevant for purposes of defining the drink. Same difference.

The Egoist

Tex-Mex isn't a seperate cuisine. It's a sub-heading under Mexican cuisine

Intro edits

A change to the intro was made recently in the name of "generalization" which, in reality eliminated a very important point. Specifically it eliminated mention of the fact that Tex-Mex is commonly confused with Mexican food. This is a mistake the average reader would make so it is an important point to clarify up front.

I have reverted the "generalization," reworded a little, and introduced citations. --Mcorazao 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It didn't eliminate the point. What it said was that Tex-Mex is sometimes confused with foods found in Mexico (Mexican cuisine). The generalisation was in an attempt to make the article less US-centric, as Tex-Mex food is available elsewhere, e.g. the UK and France (although Tex-Mex food in the UK is about as Tex-Mex as Tex-Mex food is Mexican... if that makse sense!) Thanks for the references. Nach0king 09:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't offend.

With respect, your rewording did de-emphasize the point. I understand the effort to eliminate U.S.-centricism. Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with other parts of the world to know for certain how they interpret Mexican food (nor have I found appropriate citations on the issue). From my limited travels in Europe and friends I have from various locations my impression is that most parts of the world outide of Latin America (and probably Spain) base their interpretation of "Mexican food" on the predominant U.S. interpretation, which is mostly Tex-Mex. The way to make this less U.S.-centric would be to discuss the views of other places, not to de-emphasize the point altogether. If it's a choice between being a little U.S.-centric or de-emphasizing the point I say the former is better. --Mcorazao 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken; and I wasn't offended (much ;)). I do have experience of the perception of Mexican food in some of Europe, particularly the UK, but like you, I lack any citations. Cheers, Nach0king 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Having traveled extensively, I must ask both of you "How do you create a 'citation' when you are talking about taste". New York Tex Mex is not what we have here in Texas. Nor is French Tex Mex. They use parsley instead of cilantro. The pepper alone are different and are parpared differently. As for "as Tex-Mex food is available elsewhere,..." this comment speaks for it's self, you don't live in Texas and therefore you shouldn't be making comments about Tex-Mex cuisine.

One final point Where do Hatch peppers come from? What makes up Chipotle? Each of these are specific to this region and you can not get this in New York or Paris. Let alone fresh. And then what about the "heat".

I'm sorry about the tirade but this section does a great disservice the Tex-Mex cuisine.

Catanich 00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

the premise of this article is erroneous

this article asserts that all 'mexican food' in the US is either 'not really mexican food', or is 'tex-mex'. both of these assertions are demonstrably false. there is no linguistic, culinary, or cultural evidence to support the assertions of this article and it should be either completely re-written or deleted.

i grew up in southern arizona (tucson area). there are dozens of 'authentic' mexican restaurants there, in the sense that the proprietors are americans of mexican descent. the dishes many of them serve are similarly named and prepared and have been so for at least 30 years (probably much longer), and so presumably have their origins in mexico. none of them ever called their cuisine 'tex-mex', nor have i ever heard anyone in arizona, california, or new mexico (mexican or otherwise) refer to 'mexican food' as 'tex-mex'. there is a restaurant there called 'la parilla suiza' which serves mexico-city style mexican food; how is this tex-mex? answer: it is not. there are other restaurants which proffer 'sonoran style' mexican food, and still others which specialize in other regions of mexican fare hailing presumably from the region from whence the proprietors emigrated...in what sense is it accurate to call their food 'tex-mex'? answer: it is not.

there are mexican-immigrant communities in AZ, CA, and NM which are at least as old as any in texas, and many serve food that is quite different from what one might find in texas. some of the owners are of multi-generational mexican descent and serve their food almost solely to mexican-americans, and thus this is 'genuine' mexican food except it happens to be served in the US.

furthermore, there are now large mexican-immigrant communities in many places in the US outside of the southwest. for instance in north carolina i find many small hispanic stores (possibly mexican) which contain products only labeled in spanish, and they cater almost exclusively to the hispanic immigrant community. many of these also contain small restaurants. if only people of mexican descent are preparing this food, and only people of mexican descent consume it, how is that 'tex-mex'? answer: it is not.

the phrase 'tex-mex' is not used in the american southwest outside of texas, nor the american southeast, nor do i believe its use is prevalent elsewhere. i believe this 'tex-mex' should be re-written and restricted to reflect whatever particular style of mexican-american cuisine is prevalent in texas. presumably there are specific spices and dishes, and probably the history of 'tex-mex' can be traced to a particular region of mexico, as can the varieties found elsewhere.

furthermore, there are many, many 'authentic' 'mexican food' restaurants in the US, just as there are authentic chinese, indian, and thai restaurants. many or most of them are owned and staffed by people of mexican descent. many of these people have never been to texas, nor heard or used the phrase 'tex-mex'. many of them base their menus and recipes from their (or their forebears') personal experience based upon the region of mexico they came from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjsonp (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 March 2007.

This article is basically crap and needs to be re-written. Gee, I had no idea Tex-Mex food was influenced by the Berbers and the Indians???

Ok, for those who don't know. Tex-Mex food is a regional variation of Mexican Food as produced in Northwestern Mexico and South Texas.

Since this area was Cattle country, Beef is important to this cuisine unlike other parts of Mexico.

If the Canary Islanders created Tex-Mex it is news to me. I guess they were eating alligators and pine cones in Laredo and Brownsville.

Hardly, since early times, from Brownville to San Antonio they were eating Beef, pinto beans and flour tortillas. Basically Vaquero or Cowboy food. This is the essence of Tex-Mex. Nachos came later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.132.237.8 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 May 2007.

Hey guys, could you please sign your posts? Thanks.Chicaneo 07:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User Jjsonp, I have reworded the first couple of sentences of the article. Does this help any? As you have pointed out, this article needs a lot of work. Chicaneo 15:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tex-mex used in the East

I live in New Jersey and I've heard the term Tex-Mex used constantly. On the other hand, sure there are purely Mexican restaurants in the area as well. I think Tex-Mex is a hybrid cuisine that has taken on a strong independent existence. There are both Tex-Mex and Mexican restaurants throughout the US and while the cuisines are heavily interrelated, they are different. From my purely amateur perspective I find Tex-Mex is more spicy and more meaty compared to actual Mexican cuisine.

Most people in the US I think I understand, even if they can't articulate the exactitudes, that there is a difference between Tex-Mex and Mexican cuisine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Propose to merge Fresh Mex in to this article. Sub-genre of this subject, mainly a marketing gimmick. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Tex Mex is the overriding term, though. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fresh Mex should just be deleted, the "article" contains just one sentence (an unsourced definition) and a long list of restaurant chains. There is nothing to merge. Mike R (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, "Fresh Mex" is a trademark of Chevys Fresh Mex.[1] Therefore, it's dubious to use it as a generic term here. I suggest a redirect to Chevys Fresh Mex instead of Tex-Mex cuisine. --Amble (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I've been to many of these places, and I've never heard the term Fresh Mex outside of Chevys, so I was bold and redirected Fresh Mex to Chevys Fresh Mex. Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While you were bold, you were also reckless...

Please look here. While Chevy's uses the term, they do not own the trademark on it according to the USPTO. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo needs to be replaced.

The photo shows a soup or stew containing lots of beans and chunks of tomatoes. However, classical chili con carne is meat and broth, no beans, no chunks of vegetables. Beans are optional and when present are usually pinto beans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bffnnn (talk • contribs) 06:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; these food articles need more appetizing photos.-64.91.158.12 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the photo is appetizing. The problem is that it's not correct. It's like having a page on "New York Pizza" that has a picture of a deep dish pizza. - Skuwamoto (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another agree from this random person from the internet. Texas stye chili does not contain beans.

next time i make chili i'll snap a photo and replace that if it's still there. i mean come on. beans in chili? it just ain't right.--74.196.224.9 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)