Whats wrong with Tex-Mex?

[Monte]

Why does everyone have such a hate-on for Tex-Mex?

On the Toronto Board all there is is wining about how we don't have Mexican and they dis Tex-Mex in the same breath? Does it always have to be compared to Mexican? Other food just isn't put to this kind of ridicule.

Is it really all bad? Has it not come into its own yet? What's it gonna take? Why can't anyone enjoy this food? Why does everyone reduce it to Taco Bell?

Link: http://www.thedevilsworkshop.ca

[Will Owen]

Well, you sure won't hear any of that crap from me! I love Tex-Mex, I adore Tex-Mex. It was the first variety of ANY Mexican I ever tasted that really had flair and flavor (aside from some damn good tamales we used to buy off a cart in Decatur, IL - go figure). That and Santa Fe Mex are varieties that are really hard to come by here in SoCal, as the Mexican here tends towards either the old-school Gringo Mex or Authentic Regional from well south of the border. I think there may be some confusion amongst the correspondents because the Tex and Gringo varieties do tend to blur...but I like'em both, as long as they're well prepared.

[piccola]

It would be useful if someone could draw those boundaries for me - I've only been exposed to Chipotle and taco stands, so I'm not even sure what constitutes Tex-Mex and what's Mex...

[Sherri]

Monte, I think it is easy to disparage something familiar and Tex-Mex falls into that category. Too bad for the naysayers because it is delicious! Leave them to their high horses -- more good food for us.

[Linda VH]

Hmmm, I don't disparage Tex-Mex - love it! It's just like any other food (Italian, French, American) - it's what you're in the mood to eat. Give me a really good margarita and a beef and double cheese quesidilla and I'm a happy camper lol!!! Of course you have to add guacamole, jalapenos and salsa to the quesidilla. Linda

[Nancy Berry]

For a really good discussion of the history of Tex-Mex that attributes the first use of "Tex-Mex" as a derogatory term to Diana Kennedy and her allies, go to the link below. Unfortunately, the first article (of 6) in the series appears to be unavailable. The rest of the wonderful essays are there, though. Enjoy!!

Link: http://www.houstonpress.com/special/t...

[Nancy Berry]

I found the first article in this series. Here's the link:

Link: http://www.houstonpress.com/Issues/20...

[rworange]

That is one of the best articles I have ever read. Thanks so much for taking the time to find all of this great six-part series.

I saved it off in case it disappears in cyberspace.

It discusses so much that gets commented on the board amd has good observations on authenticity.

Thanks again.

[adamclyde]

I agree. A great bit of culinary/cultural/historical writing. Very informative. Thanks for sharing!

(now I know where those cornmeal and gravy tamales come from!)

[Homer J]

Thanks for the links, Nacy. These are great.

[David Kahn]

Thanks for posting this. It's really a good read.

[Nancy Berry]

If you liked this group of essays, then you'll really like Robb Walsh's cookbook w/essays, The Tex-Mex Cookbook : A History in Recipes and Photos, and his book on Texas BBQ, Legends of Texas Barbecue Cookbook: Recipes and Recollections from the Pit Bosses.

Here's the link to more info:

Link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767...

[julesrules]

I don't think we have good 'tex-mex" in Toronto either. Decent guacamole for example is hard to find. So maybe people haven't been exposed to the good stuff (I am no expert - but I know guacamole is easy to make, and most of the pubs serving 'tex-mex' in TO do not seem to be making their own, which to me is not acceptable - it's meant to be a FRESH-made item IMO. And I know I've had cheap, good, simple, fresh food in Texas that can't really be had here. Actually I'd be curious to know what tex-mex in Toronto you like? Maybe I should try it :)

[Seth Chadwick]

I don't have a problem with Tex-Mex at all, as long as restaurants are honest about the fact that that is what they are serving.

Unfortunately, many places in Arizona call themselves "Mexican" restaurants when, in fact, they serve Tex-Mex. I believe that is a cheap ploy.

I have enjoyed Tex-Mex on many occasions, but I prefer traditional Mexican food more and it galls me to walk into a restaurant that touts its "Mexican food" and I find out it is serving Tex-Mex.

Link: http://www.feastinginphoenix.com

[Don Shirer]

Having once lived in Tucson for nine years, and visited my son in Scottsdale many times, I never had a hard time finding true Mexican or Arizona-Sonoran-Mex restaurants in either place, but said son did manage to "treat" us to a Tex-Mex joint in Phoenix that was advertised as "Mexican", so I can see where you are coming from.

Sadly, in our present CT home, most "Mexican" restaurants are Tex-Mex with little imagination. However there is one New Haven based chain "The Whole Enchilada" which purports to serve "healthy" mexican food (actually it's not bad). It is the best alternative to Tex-Mex we can find around here.

[Scott]

A "cheap ploy"? Seems to me that the only way that would be the case is if customers' expectations were frustrated when they sat down and saw the menu. But they're not--at least not in the vast majority of cases. People expect Mexican-American dishes in a "Mexican" restaurant, unless they're told to expect something different (e.g., a particular regional style). This isn't unique to Mexican. (Most people expect Italian-American dishes at "Italian" restaurants, Chinese-American at "Chinese," etc.)

In any event, given the fact that (a) what is now Texas was once part of Mexico and (b) much of the state is majority Mexican and Mexican-American, it makes more sense to consider Tex-Mex a regional style of Mexican (and, therefore, accurately described as "Mexican") than anything else.

Scott

[adamclyde]

I disagree on that last point. Tex Mex is distinctly an *American* version of mexican. NOT a regional variation on mexican. Semantics, maybe, but important, I think. Tex Mex was Mexican food made to appease americans, and progressed from there. It's different food than what you find in the northern regions of Mexico.

But I think this just gets to the point that "tex mex" is so loosely defined it doesn't really mean anything in the first place. it means gringo food to me, to you, it may mean the real authentic mexican food that is now available in much of texas, or to others it may mean the the stuff you got 50 years ago in texas.

But I'd never consider tex mex a regional style of mexican food. It's a regional variation of american food.

[ODB]

adamclyde worote:

"Tex Mex is distinctly an *American* version of mexican."

----

Considering Texas was its own Republic before joining the USA, I think you are way off base calling it an "American" version of Mexican.

If anything, it's more Texan than American. "Tex-Mex" was a term invented by Yankees.

Come to Texas and see for yourself.

Image: http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/S...

[pepper anne]

You can throw present day Oklahoma and Kansas in the same mix, as
folks have migrated up and down the Southern Plains for work and family for 150+ years. By now it's an indigenous style; lots of beef and corn dishes-just "Mexican Food". What people grew and then cooked.
Food from other regions
of Mexico requires different ingredients(I didn't grow up with Tomatillos and Avocados, for sure), that while now popular, didn't grace any platter I ever saw as a child across all 3 states.
It wasn't till I lived in California and Arizona that I saw fish and those
green fruits and vegetables associated with other styles of Mexican Food.

[Scott]

Adam,

Your comments suggest a lack of familiarity with the history of Tex-Mex, as well as the diversity of regional Mexican-American cuisines. If you've spent a meaningful amount of time in Texas, New Mexico, and California and didn't notice any differences in dishes and preparations, I'd say you need to pay closer attention.

Beyond that, I'm not sure I understand your argument. I'll concede that Tex-Mex is different, in some respects, from what one finds in the neighboring Mexican states. The problem is that the cuisine of Tamaulipas is different from the food one finds in the adjacent states of Veracruz and San Luis Potosi. So which is "Mexican" food--Tamaulipan or Potosino? Both are. Despite regional differences, they fall under the same umbrella. Same thing with Tex-Mex and other regional styles that developed on American soil.

And to say that Tex-Mex is a regional variation of American food (whatever that may be) rather than a regional variation of Mexican neglects the historical origins of the cuisine, its popularity among Mexicans as well as Americans, and the overwhelming and distinctive affinities with Mexican cuisine.

Scott

[adamclyde]

You are right, I haven't lived in texas. But having grown up in southern california (born in east LA thank you), spent considerable time traveling and living in various parts of mexico (Leon, Mexico city), I hardly think I'm naive to the discussion.

But you have missed the main point of my whole post. what I said (perhaps inarticulately) is that "Tex-Mex" doesn't mean anything because there's no real definition of what it is. Take the article that nancy posted, for example. Is that completely wrong? That's how I've understood the history of what we call tex mex in this country.

And finally, I wasn't saying that today there isn't a whole history of real mexican food in the texas region (and get off the history point. California was a part of mexico too, we all know that...) What I am saying is that what most people EQUATE to what tex mex is, is nothing more than gringo food.

Bye. discussion over.

[Ed-Mex]

Different people have different ideas about what is "Tex-Mex" food. The problem lies in those who would like to use the label to disparage others and what can be really good food, and those who would serve crappy versions of whatever "Tex-Mex" style you like.

[extramsg]

adamclyde, you're just wrong here. I think you need to read those Walsh essays and/or buy his Tex-Mex book. I'd also suggest Peyton's La Cocina de la Frontera. (The book is in English despite the title.) The latter is more general and covers all Mexican-American varieties. (Both have very good recipes, too.)

If by "Tex-Mex" you were to mean Taco Bell, then you'd be right. You can see what happens to Mexican food when it's specifically made for gringos. It gets ranch and thousand island poured on it.

But the vast majority of Mexican-American food was not made to placate the tastes of Americans, it was the food that Mexicans were making in America given the available ingredients. Then gringos began eating it -- and liking it.

I think people have an idealistic notion of "true" Mexican food and so they see a stronger distinction between the regional cuisines south and north of the border. Cooks in Mexico use tons of canned products in their cooking, processed foods, etc, just like their counterparts north of the border. It may be increasing with the younger generations, but there is less and less from scratch cooking going on. (And there are plenty of bad cooks and bad restaurants in both. I've had plenty of Mexican food in non-touristy areas by Mexicans for Mexicans that was much worse than what can be gotten in the states, just like I've had plenty of bad burgers by Americans.)

People often point to ground meat as somehow representative of Mexican-American. Sorry, molidos and picadillos are found throughout Mexico. Cheesey enchiladas? No, Mexicans love to put cheese on stuff. Fajitas? The Texans may try to claim the dish, but in Jalisco they've been serving arrachera for generations grilled and thinly cut, served with tortillas. Wheat tortillas? A staple of the northern states since soon after the conquest. Chips? Tostadas and totopos can be found throughout Mexico.

Really the only thing that separates Tex-Mex (which really is distinct from New Mexican and Arizonan food; Cal-Mex is quite close to Sonoran/Arizonan, but with things like fish tacos thrown into the mix) or other Mexican-American from "real" Mexican food is one of degree. North of the border they PRIMARILY use beef. They PRIMARILY use flour tortillas. They use A LOT of chips. Etc. I don't think a Mexican would have any problem recognizing Mexican-American dishes as Mexican, even if they weren't familiar with the dish itself. But then, there are plenty of dishes in Nayarit that someone in Oaxaca has never seen and many dishes in Campeche that someone in Michoacan has never seen. It really wasn't until the last century (another book to read is Que Vivan Los Tamales which gives a history of Mexican food post-conquest) that dishes in Mexico started to truly become national dishes. Up until then, most dishes were very regional.

One thing that's telling is that a Mexican in America wouldn't go to his local Tex-Mex joint and call the food Tex-Mex. He'd just call it Mexican. It's us Americans who really make the distinction.

There is a problem with Mexican-American food, but it has little or nothing to do with Americans. Mexican-American food is often seen as primarily a source of cheap calories and alcohol. So many restaurants put little thought or effort into their dishes. They're more worried about selling buckets of beer and margaritas the size of your head. But that happens in Mexico, too. The problem is, when you're in Toronto, that may be all you have to choose from.

Link: http://www.extramsg.com

[Spoony Bard]

An informed, well-argued post, extramsg. Thank you! You seem more knowledgable about regional Mexican cuisine than the Houston Press journalist Nancy Berry links to below. He repeats all of the Tex-Mex claims to uniqueness you take issue with. (He mentions you won't find fajitas in Mexico City, but I get the impression he's never even heard of arrachera.)

At the same time, I'm not sure I'm 100% with you on where to group this cuisine, as Mexican or American. Kind of a chowhound version of the immigration debate/culture war, no? Compare choucrote in Alsace. While Alsatians have German roots, they're now French, and their cuisine has been Frenchified. It's not saurkraut, it's choucrote garni. French food. In the same way, fajitas aren't arrachera, they're fajitas. Texas food. That's true whether made and eaten by people with roots in Jalisco or Edinburgh.

Tex-Mex still seems a useful distinction, however close the parallels and roots south of the border. That border does still matter as an influence on something as fluid as what people eat, not to mention nationality. Don't forget that we're talking about three groups of people- Mexicans, Americans, and Mexican-Americans.

Link: http://www.houstonpress.com/special/t...

[extramsg]

I don't think it's that imporant whether you call it a regional American cuisine or a regional Mexican cuisine. It's unique to other X-American cuisines because the immigrants were actually here often before the "natives" and also because the immigrant country is along the border. With Italian-American, eg, you have people who have to travel thousands of miles by boat. There's probably more of a fluidity between the two because of it. And while I bet there's little movement from Italian-American back into Italy, there's actually some influence from Mexican food in America that moves back into Mexico. eg, tortilla chips as we know them seem to be getting much more popular.

I think it's a useful distincition, too. But some people here seem to be treating it like it's totally foreign from "real" Mexican food and that the latter is clearly superior to the former.

[adamclyde]

I've been way too active in this post. Just one last clarification...

I'll admit that my point was poorly communicated. My main point is this: that "tex-mex" is a term that most people don't understand, and thus has little meaning. I know that there are incredible places in texas that have been selling authentic food for a long time. And also that it has developed over time and is still in constant change with fused cultures, etc.

What I'm referring to is that most people in the general population equate "tex-mex" to a kind of food that everyone here would agree is not just plain bad, but also doesn't reflect its origins.

Sorry I poorly communicated it. I think we are on the same page...

[extramsg]

I think Scott's point was that most people don't even use the term "Tex-Mex". I hear it every once in a while in food magazines when they're trying to distinguish regional/interior Mexican from Mexican-American, or among foodies online who are trying to do the same, but the vast majority of people, Mexican or American or Mexican-American, don't use the term whatsoever. There's just Mexican food.

I think it'd be great if we could start getting people to accurately distinguish regional styles of all cuisines. Then, perhaps, we could get people to pay more attention to such things and we might get a wider variety of dishes at restaurants. But it's certainly not the case now. (And I'm not holding my breath it will happen; besides American food is there any cuisine that is regularly distinguished by region?)

Even food writers use the term "Tex-Mex" rather poorly without an awareness, usually, that what is eaten in Texas is different from what is eaten in New Mexico, Arizona, and California. They just lump everything together pejoratively under the term "Tex-Mex" in a sort of arrogance through ignorance.

[Ed-Mex]

Most people will not be regionally distinct when describing "Mexican" food -- yes, even in Chowhound! Context is important and can be the key to understanding. So can asking questions. If it's unclear, politely ask some questions. And Chowhound and other venues have plenty of space, for now, to allow that. What's most important is distinguish crummy food from that which is tasty.

[Curtis]

Well, to be fair, it's also not too often we distinguish between the regional foods of many counties (China, France, Italy, Vietnamese, etc.) either, so I would give people slack wherever it's concerned.

[rworange]

>>> What's most important is distinguish crummy food from that which is tasty. <<<

Although the history behind this style of cooking is interesting, what may be the best thing in this thread is changing thinking. People might approach Tex-mex as being tasty instead of being dismissive that it is not good because it is not real Mexican cooking. It is its own thing.

I know this thread gave me a a different way of viewing it, though some of the posters on the SF board who mourn good Tex-mex were driving me in that direction anyway.

And I agree with you on describing exactly what you are looking for to avoid disappointment. That seems especially true with Tex-Mex where it can vary wildly.

Putting aside those places that exploit the Tex-Mex label to serve lousy food, the problem may be, from reading Walsh's article, that it was always presented as "authentic Mexican food".

If your expectations really ARE authentic Mexican food (whatever that might mean to you), when Tex-mex gets served, you are dissapointed.

Then it becomes difficult to judge it on its own merit and deliciousness.

In another category, a local place serves clam chowder which is really clams in a little broth. I had a hissy fit in the restaurant and on the board at the time because it was NOT what I wanted in terms of chowder.

If they had called it clam soup or steamed clams, or clams a la Hog Island, I probably would have raved on the board.

Instead I wasted alot of bandwith on why people shouldn't order it because it wasn't what I wanted as chowder.

And that was stupid. Deliciousness is deliciousness no matter what it is called. I think that is what reading Chowhound has helped me recognize ... well, recognize a little more.

Sometimes it helps to re-review a dish you hated by paying attention to why other people are raving about it. A recent post about someone's mother who loved those clams made me think about the dish in another way. I'm telling you that poster's mother makes me pay more even more that the poster whose opinion I respect.

Still I think it helps if restaurants sets the correct expectations. Just using the word 'style' as in Mexican-style cooking, lets me know that it is not what I'm expecting and opens me up to judging the food on its own merit.

If Alice Waters had pushed off her restaurant as French cuisine instead of California cuisine, I think it would have tanked quickly because people looking for French would have destroyed it by picking apart why it wasn't French.

Any way this was a re-enforcing post to judge a dish on how it tastes and not what might be expected. Crummy food is crummy food. Delicous is delicious. That's all that matters. If someone is looking for a specific taste, be specific about what it is craved.

Hmmm ... I guess I should apply this little lesson to pizza and judge it on whether it TASTES good and not what I want out of a slice. Perhaps I should revisit Tommasso's.

[extramsg]

A good lesson for all dining, I think. The only thing I would add is that often many of us aren't sufficiently educated in a cuisine to understand and appreciate how well something is done. We should be humble in our opinions and careful to understand what the chef is trying to create and whether that creation fits into an established tradition of good food.

eg, on topic with Mexican... Many Americans don't like dark moles. They have a very earthy, dark chile flavor. To make them palatable to Americans when they first start eating them, you often have to add sugar, etc. It would be a mistake for someone who hasn't eaten much mole to just say that it tastes bad because they don't like it. The phrase "tastes bad" is a general judgment that implies that anyone eating it, or most people eating it, would think it tastes bad and that the chef has screwed up. However, the phrase "I don't like it" just implies that it doesn't match your palate and that someone else may like it.

It's tough to distinguish and people shouldn't have to walk on eggshells with their opinions, but they do need to try to be self-conscious of their own limitations in judging food. It's one thing to judge hamburgers and an American who has spent their whole life eating them, but it's another to judge a mole for the first time.

[e.d.]

Generally an informative post, but I would disagree about Cal/Mex being like Arizonan food. As near as I can tell, old school Arizonan Sonoran food is very close to the descriptions of Tex Mex in these posts. Not exactly the same, but similar. The oldest "Mexican" restaurant in Yuma (from 1946) serves chili con carne and covers its green chili burritos (beef) with cheese and a brown gravy, which may have dried green chili powder in it, but which gets its heat from black pepper.

More modern Arizona places may be like Cal Mex places, but that's because both reflect more recent immigration, American tastes, and often the combination of Mexican border and regional styles.

ed

[Seth Chadwick]

Yes, a cheap ploy.

People in Arizona who are craving Mexican food know, by and large, exactly what they are looking for. Everyone in Phoenix knows the difference between Pepe's Taco Villa and Chevy's, and, granted, some choose to go to Chevy's anyway.

However, when a store front puts up a sign in Phoenix that says "Serving Mexican food" I don't think it is out of line to think that you are going to get something more akin to Pepe's than Chevy's. That may not be the case in Bismark, ND, but it certainly would be the case in Arizona.

Link: http://www.feastinginphoenix.com

[adamclyde]

as the article that nancy shared explains, tex-mex in most parts of the country (and I adhere to this definition) is simply an epithet for americanized mexican food. It's an easy way to characterize gringo food. That there may be a specific cultural definition of tex mex is mostly beside the point, as I doubt 99.9% of the places labeled as tex-mex are really tex-mex. They are simply gringo mexican food.

Gringo mexican food can be really tasty. It just needs to be understood and labeled for what it is. As General Tsao chicken can never be claimed to be authentically chinese, neither can most of "tex-mex" be claimed as authentically mexican.

(and fwiw, i often have cravings for general tso chicken)

[extramsg]

Really, then how come so many of these places are run by and feed Mexicans?

I'm here in Oregon and we have a modest Mexican population -- about 10%. Many are agricultural workers, but it's a broader population than that. We have a full range of Mexican restaurants: taco trucks, taquerias, traditional Mexican-American restaurants, specifically Tex-Mex, Cal-Mex burrito carts and restaurants, Cal-Mex fish taco places, regional interior Mexican restaurants. The only one of these not frequented by many actual Mexicans are the regional/interior Mexican restaurants. They're also the only ones where a majority of the chefs/owners are not Mexican.

There's this really mediocre Mexican-American combo platter sort of place just down the street from me. I've been there like twice. They're part of a local chain. I don't live among a heavy Hispanic population, probably slightly lower than the average, yet when I've been in probably almost half the customers are Latino. All the workers and cooks are, as are the owners of the chain.

Link: http://www.extramsg.com

[a&w]

>>The only one of these not frequented by many actual Mexicans are the regional/interior Mexican restaurants. They're also the only ones where a majority of the chefs/owners are not Mexican<<

Could it be the price? Authentic mexican places tend to be a bit more upscale, in my experience.

[pepper anne]

No. They are AMERICANS. They don't want to eat the authentic food of their Grandmothers. They love the Chinese Buffet down the street just like me. They buy the 2/.99 Jack in the Box tacos next to me in line. Nick's exactly correct.

[exttramsg]

True, but they're only marginally more expensive. You might pay $10 at a Mexican-American place and $14 at a midscale Mexican place. And many of the midscale places actually keep their prices low for most of their dishes and then just serve smaller portions. So you can spend about the same. I think it may have more to do with the cheaper alcohol and less family atmosphere. Mexicans usually go out with their entire family and these places don't come across as family restaurants. But you'd think you'd see a larger portion of them on dates or having business meals or something.

I also think, though, that Mexicans are much more culinarily broad than they're given credit for. I'm not sure someone from Jalisco would find a place serving Oaxacan dishes more familiar than a Mexican-American restaurant. And I'm not sure that someone from Guerrero would see one of these pan-Mexican regional/midscale restaurants as more Mexican than a good Mexican-American place unless the pan-Mexican place was serving some of their home state dishes. You're still going to get tamales and enchiladas on a Mexican-American menu that will be very much like they are throughout Mexico.

That doesn't explain why there are more gringos opening these places, though.

Link: http://www.extramsg.com

[rworange]

>>> That doesn't explain why there are more gringos opening these places, though. <<<

It does explain why Latinos don't eat at those upscale or midscale places. Don't know about your section of the country but in the SF Bay Area these places serve lousy versions of Mex-mex food.

As to gringos opening these places, it is just the latest food fad. Gringos have graduated from the American-Mexican food of their grandparents (combo plates) to that of their parents (the fajita generation) to the new 'foodie' generation who tunes into Rick Bayless and is willing to try a few more dishes that are 'authentic'.

But most people dont really want authenticity anymore than their grandparents wanted authenticy. They are just willing to add a few new dishes to the repetoire ... as long as you keep the chips and salsa.

As to the other end of the scale, like Walsh wrote about authenticity, when new immigrants come into settled parts of the country, the Latinos in that part of the country clue them into how food is expected to be served. He quotes Rick Bayless on the reason that the food in Chicago is more authentically Mexican

"When somebody from Mexico moves to Texas or California, the Chicano community is there to teach them how things are done," says Bayless. "But that doesn't happen in Chicago. The Mexicans here are almost all first-generation, and they still cook the way they did in Mexico. There's nobody here to show them what Americanized Mexican food is supposed to be like."

My S/O is Latino. When the family eats out it is more likely Sizzler, Hometown Buffet or a Chinese place. They can cook Latino/Mexican food better at home.

The more hound-oriented branch of his family enjoy good dim sum, artisan bread, and the upscale places I frequent ... if it is good. I would never in a million years take them to any Neuvo Mexican joint mainly because I don't think they are any good.

As for me recommending Mexican restuarnts (even those on Chowhound and I personally like) I stopped. They just think the food is too pathetic. They are very happy with my recs for all other cuisines though.

Even in the joints, where they might grab lunch, this food gets taylored to availability of ingrediants and budget.

One thing that annoys me to no end is how hard it is to find the tasty little grilled tortas from Mexicco City. Here they are huge subs, for all puposes. Yet the standard of living is higher here. People like those big sandwiches where they are getting value for their bucks.

Link: http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/20...

[extramsg]

I think something Bayless and Walsh aren't recognizing is that when Tex-Mex was developed we didn't have a global marketplace. You couldn't get any ingredients you wanted.

Also, I think some of that food is more prevalent in Texas than Walsh realizes and isn't as prominent in Chicago as Bayless tries to suggest it is. However, a friend and I had looked into the origins of Mexican immigrants in Texas and Chicago and they were much more mixed in Chicago, whereas in Texas they primarily came from northern states and a couple other states. Here in Portland, most seem to come from Michoacan, Jalisco, and other northern and western states. It shows in the taquerias.

[adamclyde]

"Really, then how come so many of these places are run by and feed Mexicans?"

not sure what places you are referring to, or what in my post you are responding to. I think I agree with you...

(btw, I tried some of the places in oregon based on your recommendation, though I didn't find that al pastor place on fourth plain in vancouver... alas... next time)

[extramsg]

You were saying that most places labelled as Tex-Mex are just gringo-oriented places. I'm saying that these places, however, are probably most run by Mexicans and where there are significant populations of Mexicans, also patroned by Mexicans.

The place on 4th Plain went out of business, sadly. Actually, my two favorite places there went out of business. Luckily, one of them still has a location in Portland. (And they're opening one in Spokane if anyone is interested.)

[Bob Martinez]

All of the posters on this thread (so far) have it right - Tex Mex can be very good when it's well made. When it's not, it's bad - just like every other badly cooked meal.

There is a certain snobbyness about Tex-Mex, a feeling by some that they've outgrown that style of cooking. Instead they want to talk about the latest regional Mexican place that opened up 15 minutes ago.

I like to hear about those places too but in the end I want to hear about *all* good restaurants. Excluding some based on any criteria other than poor quality means we miss out on something good.

[Steve S.]

As I have never been to Texas, I'd like to know if there is a marked difference between what is available down there and what is generally available elsewhere. Almost every iteration of Tex-Mex I have had in my life, wheither living in DC, NY, or Florida is horrible food, something that shouldn't happen to dogs. What I call Taco Bell with a Liquor License. or Alpo-Mex.

For the record, a good goat taco or chorizo or al pastor can make me swoon.

[alex]

amen...to the birria and pastor taco comment

[K. McB.]

Exactly. Some may be very good, and it depends on where you are and what's available. So much of what a I've had has been awful and overpriced mall food with grain alcohol kool-aid margaritas to screw up your head and palate.

[ODB]

These poor misguided souls have just been victims of bad Mexican restaurants. They don't have the experice to make a real judgement.

When you are not familair with something it's easy to disparage when you come across sub-par food.

Come on down to Houston and see the good stuff first hand.

And FWIW, we native Texans never, ever-ever, call it Tex-Mex.

That's just plain silly.

[Bob Martinez]

"... we native Texans never, ever-ever, call it Tex-Mex."

That begs the question - what *do* you call it? And if you call it Mexican, how do you distinguish that distinctive type with regional Mexican cuisines like Oaxacan?

[ODB]

The really good Mexican places in Houston have a mix from all the Mexican regions on their menu.

I think for Texans it's all in the conditioning. You start out eating the enchillada plate as a toddler and over time and learn the differences of what places serve.

But they are all refered to as Mexican restaurants.

I searched all the Mexican restaurants in Houston and only one calls itself "Tex-Mex".

But one thing you rarely see here is the New Mexican style of "Mexican". I love the red/green stuff. Maybe because I never get it.

Link: http://www.b4-u-eat.com/eat002.asp?Z=...

[extramsg]

I agree with most of what you say, but I bet that first sentence really isn't true, though. I bet you rarely find a true "best of" Mexican regional specialties even at any of the places trying to be the stepchild of Diana Kennedy down there. I've been to many regional/interior Mexican restaurants in the US and most do a similar thing: either a) they have a "best of" the well-known interior dishes, usually dominated by dishes from Puebla and Oaxaca, maybe Jalisco, or b) they have have (a) plus some dishes from the chef's home state, if the chef is Mexican.

I've never seen, eg, pan de cazon on a restaurant menu in the US, despite it being EVERYWHERE in Campeche. I've never seen tlayudas in the US despite it being the favorite street food in Oaxaca. I've never seen pescado zarandeado in the US despite it being all up and down the coasts of Nayarit, Sinaloa, etc. Pozole is on every Mexican menu, but how often do you even see a pozole blanco or verde?

What you do see are many of the same dishes: mole poblano, cochinita pibil, gorditas, mojo de ajo, ceviche, etc, etc.

Link: http://www.extramsg.com

[Spoony Bard]

>>I've never seen tlayudas in the US despite it being the favorite street food in Oaxaca.

Next stop on your travel blog- the Oaxacan food trucks and restaurants of Los Angeles!

:)

Link: http://www.guelaguetzarestaurante.com/

[extramsg]

That place looks great. Maybe I can get down there when the weather cools off this fall. I almost went on a trip LA to Phoenix this last winter, but went to Mexico instead. I've only been to one other specifically Oaxacan restaurant in the US. It was in Chicago.

[rworange]

Of course if you stick to the main stream Mexican restuarnts where the city and suburban crowd dine, you are unlikely to see those dishes.

I've seen everything you mentioned. If you are in Petaluma, Ca. there is a bakery that sells tlayudas.

I've seen pozole blanco in a place a few miles from me in Richmond, CA. I've seen green pozole and the pescado zarandeado when I lived near San Diego.

However, these were served at small little places that are serving the Latino popuplation.

Couldn't remember if tlayudas were the big tortillas from Mexico or the fried grasshoppers. The same place in Petaluma sells both. Say away from them grasshoppers tho. They have high levels of lead.

Link: http://www.oaxacatimes.com/html/tlayu...

[extramsg]

Yeah, I've seen some of these dishes in the US as well (not pan de cazon), but they've been in little places like you describe or even at trucks and carts. There's a bit of a dive in Chicago, eg, that serves all three colors of pozole every day and they're really good. I was talking about at the more substantial, midscale restaurants that are more full service restaurants and market themselves as "authentic" Mexican food.

Tlayudas are the big tortillas. Chapulines are the grasshoppers.

[Eric Eto]

Whenever I'm in LA, I take a look at the El Oaxaqueño newspaper that's available at several of the Oaxacan restaurants and businesses around town. I tend to concentrate on any food news and restaurant ads for new openings. Clayudas/tlayudas are available at many places in lA. If you look at the newspaper website, you'll see that Guelaguetza is a major advertiser, and they have almost all the Oaxacan specialties on the menu.

Link: http://www.oaxacalifornia.com/index.php

[GoalieJeff]

If you go to southwest Detroit , you'll see plenty of those thinks on menus , and plenty of barely english speaking folks ( and plenty of us "natives " ) eating them . BTW , Tex-Mex here is pretty much limited to chains like Qdoba and their ilk . Horrible . I had grilled chicken tacos there a few weekends back , and it was the first food I have eaten in a long time that actually tasted bad . I have tried many things I haven't liked ( I sadly despise olives , but that doesn't make them bad , I get it , I just don't care for it .) These tacos were BAD , foul , hoorribly thought out nightmares . So to me , Tex-Mex sucks . But I don't know any better . And Texas ain't for me . Sorry .

[extramsg]

It's worth noting that Q-Doba, like Chipotle, is actually from Colorado, not Texas. I think Q-Doba sucks and the one that opened near me went out of busines in less than six months. Q-Doba, Baja Fresh, Chipotle, and similar are really fast food Mexican and making a judgment of Mexican-American food based on those is the same as making a judgment of American food based on McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King. (Actually, I think Baja Fresh has a couple good things and at least they make their salsas from scratch and Chipotle has some nice burritos for fast food. Huge steps up from Taco Bell.)

I did a quick search on Citysearch and it looks like you have some promising Mexican-American places:

El Charro Mexican
Zumba
El Zocalo
Xochimilco Restaurant
Other places along Bagley

[Scott]

Like ExtraMSG said, Qdoba is not Tex-Mex. Furthermore, it's a chain owned by Jack in the Box. Judging Tex-Mex based on a Qdoba in Detroit is like judging Italian based on an Olive Garden in Laredo. Maybe you wouldn't like Tex-Mex. But, based on what it sounds like you've had to this point, I think it's impossible to say.

Scott

[extramsg]

Actually, it's closer to basing an opinion of Italian on Sbarro in Laredo. Olive Garden gives Qdoba too much credit.

[GoalieJeff]

That was kinda my point , I have no frame of reference . Maybe real tex mex is real good , sadly , I'll probably never know . But , happily , metor Detroit has quite a few mexican and mexican-american joints that rock .

[Scott]

Bob,

But then your question raises yet another question. If we call any regional Mexican restaurant "Mexican," how are we to tell if the style is from Oaxaca, Jalisco, Michoacan, Veracruz, Puebla, etc.? The problem--to the extent it is a problem--is not unique to Tex-Mex. (If we call Italian-American cuisine "Italian," how do we distinguish styles from Tuscany, Piedmont, Sardinia, etc.?)

But, as I mentioned in a different post, it's not a problem. Geographical context sets expectations. In Texas, one expects a "Mexican" restaurant to serve Tex-Mex dishes, unless there's some indication to the contrary.

Scott

[ODD]

But in Texas they all don't serve Tex-Mex.

That just it. You learn where to go for what you are looking for.

[Fleur]

Almost all of the Mexican food in Texas is what Yankees call Tex-Mex. This is what Texans eat and what Texans of Mexican ancestry eat.It is incredible good.

The food of the rest of Mexico is not really represented in Texas.

[Scott]

You write, "The food of the rest of Mexico is not really represented in Texas."

If by that you mean that there's more Tex-Mex in Texas than, say, Pueblan cuisine, you're right. (And, not surprisingly, there's more Pueblan than Tex-Mex in Puebla.)

If you mean to suggest that there's no meaningful representation of various Mexican regional cuisines in Texas, I would disagree. You've got people from all regions of Mexico flowing into Texas, bringing their foodways with them.

Scott

[extramsg]

And not only that -- not only the taquerias and taco trucks -- but also Houston, Austin, and Dallas (at minimum) all have restaurants specializing in mid/upscale regional Mexican. I bet it's better represented in Texas than at least 3/4 of the states.

[a&w]

Honestly, most of what people think of as "mexican" food is really either tex-mex or cal-mex. I frankly prefer cal mex (e.g., mission-style burritos) to authentic "mexican" food.

[iamflyer]

tex mex is okay, not my favorite mexican style food but if it's offered to me, I won't turn it down. there are flavors that are incorporated into tex mex in my opinion that I don't want in my mexican food.

I work in texas so have eaten a lot of tex mex. living in calif means mexican food to me here, is how it's supposed to be but that is because it's what I'm used to. usually for me that is how my opinions are formed. in other words, what a person has grown up with.

[ODB]

What flavors do you consider Tex-Mex?

Same quetion for Cal-Mex.

[raj1]

For me, it's not so much about flavor as it is about dishes. For instance, when I think Tex-Mex I think of the classic enchilada plate--2-3 enchiladas (beef, chicken or cheese) with rice and beans. When I think of Cal-Mex, burritos and gorditas come to mind.

[welle]

hmmmm, I've had the dish you described enchiladas +rice&beans at mexican restaurants in Queens, run by Mexicans and catering to Mexicans with staff barely speaking English. had no idea it was Tex-Mex.

Cannot wait to see Anthhony Bourdain's show on Monday where he travels to US-Mexico border. Hope that clarifies many things...

[pepper anne]

What do you expect him to clarify?

[welle]

probably not much, but want to see what regular ppl eat there on both sides of the border

[raj1]

"hmmmm, I've had the dish you described enchiladas +rice&beans at mexican restaurants in Queens, run by Mexicans and catering to Mexicans with staff barely speaking English. had no idea it was Tex-Mex."

hmmm, I've had burritos in Manahattan...

[welle]

I've had burritos in Manhattan too mostly in places aspiring to bring "Mission style" to NY. The thing is in NY, most manhattan mexican places are gringo-oriented and working class Mexicans live either in Brooklyn or Queens, so you're most likely to find authentic stuff in those boros. Who knows maybe most Mexicans in queens come to NY by way of Texas and adopt the food there, or they prevalently come from areas where enchiladas+rice+beans is a common dish.

[extramsg]

Ummm, Mexicans eat beans. Mexicans eat rice. Mexicans eat enchiladas. In Mexico. And they even eat them together.

At cocina economicas and market fondas throughout the country, enchiladas with beans and rice is very common. Beans and rice come with many, many meals. The Mexican-American combo platters are not unique to America or gringo-oriented places.

Actually, the taqueria Mexican places that serve everything ala carte are less common in Mexico and would probably be equivalent to the street stands.

[Steve S.]

What a great, informative thread this has been. Thanks so much to Scott, ODB, extramsg and others for the knowledge, passion, and sticktuitiveness. I am sure when I finally get my sorry self down to Texas or Mexico I will realize first hand some of the great food down there.

[pralinepatty]

Well, I am from Texas, now in Florida, missed Tex-Mex food, even enjoyed carefully selected items from Taco Bell, crunchy taco supreme or nachos, but have found a couple of really good Tex-Mex places to eat here in Ft. Lauderdale, but I agree with some of you that the name Tex-Mex is a very useful thing in selecting places to try to add to my list. It is similar to choices in the grocery store, Pace's picante is the best, Lawry's taco seasoning is the best. If you buy some of the other brands you can end up throwing whatever you used it in out. I agree that it is the good ingredients versus the not so good plus whether the staff fixing the food and the receipes used are good that decides the quality.

[Bill on Capitol Hill]

As I've learned since I moved from Arizona to D.C., it is important to recognize when you're in a Tex-Mex place to guide your ordering. If there's a Rube Goldberg tortilla-making machine and fajitas are prominently featured on the menu, order them -- or at least tacos al carbon. It's not Mexican, but it can be mighty good. The enchiladas or tamales or burritos on such a menu are likely to disappoint.