I’ve often felt that Tex-Mex has little to do with authentic Mexican cuisine. Thank you for shedding light on this subject. Btw, I’ll still be enjoying queso on occasion.
On the subject of cultural appropriation, one thing that galls me, and eating establishments and their staff, a lot of them of Mexican descent, are as guilty as anyone of this: you order the fajitas and immediately comes the question, "beef, chicken or shrimp?" Huh? Fajitas translated means "small belts", that particular cut of meat that, literally, holds up the cows belly, much as a belt holds up your trousers. There is no such thing as chicken or shrimp fajitas, or julienned vegetables, for that matter. So, the cultural appropriation, more so, takes form in the "butchering" of our language and re-defining our language. It is one thing to be corrected and instructed on word selection, or pronunciation, by one whose language is indigenous. But, to be instructed by someone whose primary language is something other than Spanish is the epitome of arrogance. Once, I had to repeat myself three times to an Anglo waitress, "....and a small order of guacamole...wa-ca-mo-le!" "Oh...you mean wacky-moley!" "No! GodDa**it! I mean guacamole!" I feel so much better now....and to repeat my peeve...there is NO SUCH thing as shrimp, chicken, vegetable or mountain oyster fajitas...dammit!
In his book, Medrano defines Tex-Mex (against "Texas Mexican") with these criteria: (a) a narrow range of foods, mostly made by restaurants rather than home cooks; (b) more processed yellow cheese; (c) fatty refried beans; and (d) more fried foods.
(d) is false, since almost all fried Tex-Mex items originated in Mexico (fried tacos, flautas, chiles rellenos, tostadas, etc.). Anecdotally, and per your intro, a lot of people agree that cheese is the most important distinction.
But I went to high school in San Antonio, date a San Antonian, and know a lot of South Texas folks. For Medrano's Texas Mexican, they use terms like "San Antonio Tex-Mex," "real Tex-Mex," "authentic Tex-Mex," and "good Tex-Mex." They call cheesy combo plates "bad Tex-Mex," "northern Tex-Mex," or, most candidly, "that sh*t they serve in Dallas." In other words: is extra cheese really enough to distinguish a whole new cuisine?
The weak point in Medrano's argument is that to accommodate his distaste for extra fat, he narrowly defines a diverse cuisine, then ahistorically segregates it. Tex-Mex wasn't simply stolen by white people and whitewashed. That did happen, but other things happened too. Latinos invented tacos al carbon, fajitas, frozen margarita machines, and "Tex-Mex barbecue." Pioneering chefs from Mama Ninfa to Josef Centeno call their work Tex-Mex.
By making "Tex-Mex" pejorative, we risk obscuring that history, and the fact that many of the "bad" foods originated in poverty, hardship, or lack of ingredients, not some kind of cynical plot to suck the soul out of Mexican culture. The people who turned to processed cheese weren't complicit, they were making do. (This does not mean that a diner who prefers natural cheese, like you and me, has to "make do" now. We don't. But we have to know why they did.)
Two excellent articles which present this side of the story are Obed Manuel's in the Dallas Morning News and, in greater depth, Meghan McCarron's in Eater. Also worth reading José Ralat's Eater feature about another cheesy, disparaged regionalism, Kansas City tacos.
Maybe we'll decide on a different name for Tex-Mex. Texas Mexican? Border Mexican? Assimilation cuisine? Who knows. Until then, I'll stick to just two terms: Tex-Mex, and that sh*t they serve in Dallas.
I’ve often felt that Tex-Mex has little to do with authentic Mexican cuisine. Thank you for shedding light on this subject. Btw, I’ll still be enjoying queso on occasion.
Terrific analysis. Great documentation for a theme in cultural appropriation not very often discussed (at least to my limited knowledge...)
On the subject of cultural appropriation, one thing that galls me, and eating establishments and their staff, a lot of them of Mexican descent, are as guilty as anyone of this: you order the fajitas and immediately comes the question, "beef, chicken or shrimp?" Huh? Fajitas translated means "small belts", that particular cut of meat that, literally, holds up the cows belly, much as a belt holds up your trousers. There is no such thing as chicken or shrimp fajitas, or julienned vegetables, for that matter. So, the cultural appropriation, more so, takes form in the "butchering" of our language and re-defining our language. It is one thing to be corrected and instructed on word selection, or pronunciation, by one whose language is indigenous. But, to be instructed by someone whose primary language is something other than Spanish is the epitome of arrogance. Once, I had to repeat myself three times to an Anglo waitress, "....and a small order of guacamole...wa-ca-mo-le!" "Oh...you mean wacky-moley!" "No! GodDa**it! I mean guacamole!" I feel so much better now....and to repeat my peeve...there is NO SUCH thing as shrimp, chicken, vegetable or mountain oyster fajitas...dammit!
In his book, Medrano defines Tex-Mex (against "Texas Mexican") with these criteria: (a) a narrow range of foods, mostly made by restaurants rather than home cooks; (b) more processed yellow cheese; (c) fatty refried beans; and (d) more fried foods.
(d) is false, since almost all fried Tex-Mex items originated in Mexico (fried tacos, flautas, chiles rellenos, tostadas, etc.). Anecdotally, and per your intro, a lot of people agree that cheese is the most important distinction.
But I went to high school in San Antonio, date a San Antonian, and know a lot of South Texas folks. For Medrano's Texas Mexican, they use terms like "San Antonio Tex-Mex," "real Tex-Mex," "authentic Tex-Mex," and "good Tex-Mex." They call cheesy combo plates "bad Tex-Mex," "northern Tex-Mex," or, most candidly, "that sh*t they serve in Dallas." In other words: is extra cheese really enough to distinguish a whole new cuisine?
The weak point in Medrano's argument is that to accommodate his distaste for extra fat, he narrowly defines a diverse cuisine, then ahistorically segregates it. Tex-Mex wasn't simply stolen by white people and whitewashed. That did happen, but other things happened too. Latinos invented tacos al carbon, fajitas, frozen margarita machines, and "Tex-Mex barbecue." Pioneering chefs from Mama Ninfa to Josef Centeno call their work Tex-Mex.
By making "Tex-Mex" pejorative, we risk obscuring that history, and the fact that many of the "bad" foods originated in poverty, hardship, or lack of ingredients, not some kind of cynical plot to suck the soul out of Mexican culture. The people who turned to processed cheese weren't complicit, they were making do. (This does not mean that a diner who prefers natural cheese, like you and me, has to "make do" now. We don't. But we have to know why they did.)
Two excellent articles which present this side of the story are Obed Manuel's in the Dallas Morning News and, in greater depth, Meghan McCarron's in Eater. Also worth reading José Ralat's Eater feature about another cheesy, disparaged regionalism, Kansas City tacos.
https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/2018/09/25/tex-mex-may-be-how-mexican-american-restaurant-owners-in-dallas-stayed-in-business/
https://www.eater.com/2018/3/7/17081968/best-food-texas-tex-mex-barbecue
https://www.eater.com/2019/4/23/18294269/kansas-city-tacos-origin-parmesan
Maybe we'll decide on a different name for Tex-Mex. Texas Mexican? Border Mexican? Assimilation cuisine? Who knows. Until then, I'll stick to just two terms: Tex-Mex, and that sh*t they serve in Dallas.