huck wrote:
> Y dont anyone post mexican food anymore???

We're still discussing Mexican food, but we have found our way out of
the Norteño Taco Hell and moved south to Oaxaca and Yucatan...

The Galloping Gourmand wrote:
> huck wrote:
>> Y dont anyone post mexican food anymore???
>
> We're still discussing Mexican food, but we have found our way out of
> the Norteño Taco Hell and moved south to Oaxaca and Yucatan...
>

Sounds a little Bigoted... nothing wrong with border food, to each his own.

"Sonoran Dude" > wrote in message
...
> The Galloping Gourmand wrote:
>> huck wrote:
>>> Y dont anyone post mexican food anymore???
>>
>> We're still discussing Mexican food, but we have found our way out of
>> the Norteño Taco Hell and moved south to Oaxaca and Yucatan...
>>
>
> Sounds a little Bigoted... nothing wrong with border food, to each his
> own.

A little is an understatement, Dude.

There are more than a few who do not believe in this misperceived elitist
rhetoric, nor is there any logic or reason to limit Mexican foods to the
Tropic of Cancer and below either. Perhaps it is some sense of snobbish
quantification, yet the "Mexican" foods they limitedly discuss all involved
a post conquest Spanish Influence, go figure. Old Mexican, New Mexican,
Nuevo Latino, it is all good, those that want to continue to classify Tacos
& Tamales as Peasant food not worthy of discussion, or Fajitas and
Chimichunga as an American abomination, well?? just remember they are not
cooks they are pretentious grommets. Pretty stupid ass gringo thinking for
someone to reclassify someone who was born, raised and lived as a Mexican
based on where s/he lived in the Republic Mexico is it not? Or even in the
SW US where they have lived since before them white boy pilgrims came along.
You know the saying, You White, You Right.

Gunner wrote:
Pretty stupid ass gringo thinking for
> someone to reclassify someone who was born, raised and lived as a Mexican
> based on where s/he lived in the Republic Mexico is it not? Or even in the
> SW US where they have lived since before them white boy pilgrims came along.
> You know the saying, You White, You Right.

We sometimes forget that one Hell of a lot of the SW U.S. was Mexico
until the early 1800's. Texas was Mexico until it became an
independent Republic from 1836 to 1845 (when Texas admitted the U.S. to
the Union). It can be truly said that, except for a
politically-contrived line on a map... Texas cooking IS Mexican
cooking. Northern California became a colony of China during the gold
rush... but southern California is just a part of Mexico without
Gringos (there are far more Gringos in Mexico than California).
Arizona and New Mexico are mostly native-American with a limited
Mexican influence (less than they want to admit). The lust for gold
was beaten out by the travel time and lack of desire to keep going
northward, as the Spanish headed north converting and enslaving
"Indians" in the 1500's. Much of Arizona and a lot of New Mexico were
spared and the foods are different.

Basically, it's all Mexican food, though.

Jack

"Jack Tyler" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>> Basically, it's all Mexican food, though.
>
> Jack

I just had my 94 yo MIL visit for nearly 2 1/2 months, so between that and
this NG I have had more than enough "back in the day" and the "my Momma"
stories to last a lifetime, so I say lets call it criollo and get to
posting recipes, techniques and news.

Dr Harris leaves out the Phillipino aspect of Criollo but a lot of what she
says in her book has been my approach to food studies over the years.
Inclusion rather than exclusion Here is an excerpt from her Book Beyond
Gumbo
Creole Fusion Food from the Atlantic Rim for those that want to read about
it. http://www.simonsays.com/content/boo...=411311&agid=2

I go to the Foodnetwork to watch and learn food issues. When I want
history lessons, I go to the History Channel. I came here to read about
Mexican Cooking because those are the operative words but so far this NG is
brow beaten by the few who are long on personal philosophy, prejudices and
Myths very, very short on cooking. Personally I think they would be better
served in the Mutual Admiration Society and the Right wing Bigots-R-US
Newsgroups.

Back to cooking.
Criollo cooking links:
http://www.ciaprochef.com/WOF2005/criollo.html

http://www.ciaprochef.com/WOF2005/ca...n-history.html

http://www.perucooking.com/chefenrique.html

Had to throw this R. Bayless/CIA video in on making Mole Negro
http://www.ciaprochef.com/WOF2005/mole.html

Food topic for the day: Tonight's dinner is a variation of Reed Hearon's
Spicy Quail with Green Chorizo. Quail is hard to raise, much less harvest
here so I will be using 2- 22oz. spatchcocked and brined Game hens w/ a
Blood Orange Chile sauce and plated with two medallions of homemade
sausages, one a Green (pipian or pumpkin seed) Chorizo,and the other a
Chipolte Chorizo. A Yam, Yuca and Coconut Fritter will be served as the
starch with a side of Grilled Radicchio with melted Cotija cheese topped
with a chimichurri sauce and refried Drunken Beans. My market was out of
any good Chilean wines and do not want to drive across town in all this
weather mess so it will be a chilled local Chateau Ste Michelle Chardonnay.

Sonoran Dude wrote:
> The Galloping Gourmand wrote:

> > We're still discussing Mexican food, but we have found our way out of
> > the Norteño Taco Hell and moved south to Oaxaca and Yucatan...
> >
>
> Sounds a little Bigoted... nothing wrong with border food, to each his own.

Do you even know the origins of the term "bigot", as opposed to the
radical liberal redefinition that came about in the last century?

Yes, everybody has seen that now classic satire on American
conservatives. The Archie Bunker character in "All In The Family" was
supposed to depict the middle-aged White male as a bigot, in order to
critique the attitudes of the working class in the 1970's.

Now Hank Hill is doing the same thing, as did Homer Simpson. But the
cartoonists made Homer yellow, so as not to draw too much attention to
his ethnicity as he interacts with recent immigrants.

But, back to the two main stories about the origins of the term
"bigot".

The first one says that there was a little village in France that was
called "Bigot". And the people who lived in Bigot did not want to
become Roman Catholics when the first priests arrived. But the church
forced the liturgy of their Roman faith upon the stubborn people of
Bigot, and anybody who unreasonably clings to their older ways is
called a "bigot".

The other story is that the Norsemen came a-viking, i.e., raiding, in
that area of France which is now known as "Normandy". The French king
knew that he couldn't beat the Vikings, so he paid them to leave by
giving them a chest filled with gold and jewels.

This practice of paying off the Vikings wasn't limited to France, it
also took place across the sea in England, where the Anglo Saxons kings
paid the Vikings "Dane Geld" or "Dane Gold".

Well, the Vikings found the French king to be much too easy going, he
wouldn't fight, he'd rather pay. So they came back to rape on burn and
loot and pillage. So the French king decided that he would be better
off if he made a military alliance with the Norse.

He gave them land and titles, and all he wanted in return was loyalty.
The French king asked to Viking prince to swear an oath of allegience
to him, and he wanted one more little thing. He wanted the Viking
prince to get down and kiss his dainty, slippered foot.

And the Viking is reported to have shouted, "By God (Bi Got), I will
not!"

But nowadays, we have radical liberals throwing the "bigot"term around
very loosely, applying it to anybody who disagrees with their own idea
of what is "politically correct" at the moment.

Back to Mexican food. I personally *love* tamales, and I dig
enchiladas. My mother was probably the first person of German
Jewish/Danish descent in our little town that ever held a taquiza. The
Americans didn't like her tacos that came out of a cardboard box with
the Kraft label.

I never cared for greasy tacos in brittle shells that much, and despise
soft tacos, but that's my *personal taste*. I'm not telling anybody
else they shouldn't like tacos.

But there are like seventy different ways to make antojitos that I know
of, and Americans are so accustomed to seeing antojitos served as if
they were main dishes, they've come to think of a "combination plate"
of a tamale and two enchiladas with rice and beans and a little salad
as a traditional "plato" instead of a "platillo".

All those antojitos are just botanas, they are snacks, like hors
d'oeuvres, I don't plan to make a *meal* out of antojitos.

But, if you want to post a recipe about the 71st way to make an
antojito, go for it.

It will have to be very novel and previously unknown for it to fire my
imagination...

"The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in message
oups.com...

Sonoran Dude wrote:
> The Galloping Gourmand wrote:

---snip for brevity---

All those antojitos are just botanas, they are snacks, like hors
d'oeuvres, I don't plan to make a *meal* out of antojitos.

But, if you want to post a recipe about the 71st way to make an
antojito, go for it.

It will have to be very novel and previously unknown for it to fire my
imagination...

-------

I'm sure you can count 70 antojitos, or botanas... but if you count a
chicken taco, a fish taco, a carnitas taco and so on as one, two and
three... then I wonder. If you were to group these bocadillos into a kind of
Pareto analysis I think you will find only a few basic ingredients but
cooked and served in the 70 ways you mention. Like a quesadilla can be
closed, open, can be with flor de calabaza or with cheese. A sope, picadito
and chalupa are basically the same thing; made with maza, a base and a
topping of some kind of salsa, with or without cheese, lettuce, cilantro and
the like. A tamal is nothing more than maza prepared with a bit of baking
soda and the same meats and salsas used in tacos. If we count the number of
different fillings and ingredients used in making these delights, I'm sure
the count would go over a thousand if we used every regional favorite tidbit
from Playas to Cancun, Vialla Hermosa to Tampico, Acapulco through the DF,
Puebla and into Veracruz.

I'd love to see your list of 70... just for fun. And do pick on you a bit
since you are one of the more interesting characters (read: people) in this
forum. (;-)

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

> I'd love to see your list of 70... just for fun.

My machine crashed this morning, and my unsaved list was sent to the
graveyard of bits and bytes.

But this site has a long list of antojitos, and the site owner does
include various ways to prepare tacos as separate items, which they
actually are. He could do the same thing with tamales or tortas or
enchiladas to easily expand the number of possibilities to 70.

We are seeing the same basic ingredients of greasy toasted corn and
inexpensive meats arranged in slightly different ways, and the naive
consumer of Mexican food is baffled by the apparent multitude of
possibilities when he tries to decipher the menu on the wall.

http://www.lomexicano.com/mexicanfoodrecipeglossary.htm

"The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Wayne Lundberg wrote:
>
>> I'd love to see your list of 70... just for fun.
>
> My machine crashed this morning, and my unsaved list was sent to the
> graveyard of bits and bytes.
>
> But this site has a long list of antojitos, and the site owner does
> include various ways to prepare tacos as separate items, which they
> actually are. He could do the same thing with tamales or tortas or
> enchiladas to easily expand the number of possibilities to 70.
>
> We are seeing the same basic ingredients of greasy toasted corn and
> inexpensive meats arranged in slightly different ways, and the naive
> consumer of Mexican food is baffled by the apparent multitude of
> possibilities when he tries to decipher the menu on the wall.
>
> http://www.lomexicano.com/mexicanfoodrecipeglossary.htm

How very convenient.

"The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Wayne Lundberg wrote:
>
> > I'd love to see your list of 70... just for fun.
>
> My machine crashed this morning, and my unsaved list was sent to the
> graveyard of bits and bytes.
>
> But this site has a long list of antojitos, and the site owner does
> include various ways to prepare tacos as separate items, which they
> actually are. He could do the same thing with tamales or tortas or
> enchiladas to easily expand the number of possibilities to 70.
>
> We are seeing the same basic ingredients of greasy toasted corn and
> inexpensive meats arranged in slightly different ways, and the naive
> consumer of Mexican food is baffled by the apparent multitude of
> possibilities when he tries to decipher the menu on the wall.
>
> http://www.lomexicano.com/mexicanfoodrecipeglossary.htm

You mentioned before that you could not imagine a full meal with just
antojitos. But that's not the point. Antojitos are eaten normally two times
a day in between meals. The traditional breakfast of huevos rancheros, then
midmorning some tacos, then at noon or a bit later the three course meal and
siesta, then in the afternoon a tamale, or a chalupa from a street vendor on
your way back home or.... and the nightcap will be a light bread or another
antojito.

As I keep repeating myself in this forum, and others, Mexican food is not a
meal. It is a culture. It is a sequence of events where some foods are
allowed to age a few days to icrease flavor and to save on cooking heat and
to make the eating pleasure fit with the normal activities that keep a
family on time and on schedule for the whole food thing. Remember, we
Mexicans live only for the pleasure of eating. You gringos eat in order to
live and keep punching the clock at the factory for a paycheck. It's a
different world.

Wayne

>

The Galloping Gourmand wrote:
> Yawn!

"The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in message
oups.com...

Sonoran Dude wrote:
> The Galloping Gourmand wrote:

> > We're still discussing Mexican food, but we have found our way out of
> > the Norteño Taco Hell and moved south to Oaxaca and Yucatan...
> >
>
> Sounds a little Bigoted... nothing wrong with border food, to each his
> own.

Do you even know the origins of the term "bigot", as opposed to the
radical liberal redefinition that came about in the last century?

Yes, everybody has seen that now classic satire on American
conservatives. The Archie Bunker character in "All In The Family" was
supposed to depict the middle-aged White male as a bigot, in order to
critique the attitudes of the working class in the 1970's.

Now Hank Hill is doing the same thing, as did Homer Simpson. But the
cartoonists made Homer yellow, so as not to draw too much attention to
his ethnicity as he interacts with recent immigrants.

But, back to the two main stories about the origins of the term
"bigot".

The first one says that there was a little village in France that was
called "Bigot". And the people who lived in Bigot did not want to
become Roman Catholics when the first priests arrived. But the church
forced the liturgy of their Roman faith upon the stubborn people of
Bigot, and anybody who unreasonably clings to their older ways is
called a "bigot".

The other story is that the Norsemen came a-viking, i.e., raiding, in
that area of France which is now known as "Normandy". The French king
knew that he couldn't beat the Vikings, so he paid them to leave by
giving them a chest filled with gold and jewels.

This practice of paying off the Vikings wasn't limited to France, it
also took place across the sea in England, where the Anglo Saxons kings
paid the Vikings "Dane Geld" or "Dane Gold".

Well, the Vikings found the French king to be much too easy going, he
wouldn't fight, he'd rather pay. So they came back to rape on burn and
loot and pillage. So the French king decided that he would be better
off if he made a military alliance with the Norse.

He gave them land and titles, and all he wanted in return was loyalty.
The French king asked to Viking prince to swear an oath of allegience
to him, and he wanted one more little thing. He wanted the Viking
prince to get down and kiss his dainty, slippered foot.

And the Viking is reported to have shouted, "By God (Bi Got), I will
not!"

But nowadays, we have radical liberals throwing the "bigot"term around
very loosely, applying it to anybody who disagrees with their own idea
of what is "politically correct" at the moment.


Semantics are argued all the time by bigots just as Hitler did. But this is
a BIGOT:

Head Bustin' Hank Posts: n/a

Hispanics beat reporter over fake ID

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ramon F Herrera wrote:

> I know several. They were all invited to cross the border by some
> people who are as owners of this land as you and me.

Bullshit. Nobody invited illegal aliens to come here and this is NOT
your land, it's our land. Your land is Venezuela and you abandoned
your
own national struggle to come here and steal opportunities from Real
Americans and take up their living space.

> And since you are
> so worried about the legality issue, you are definitely coming to
the
> newsgroups and vigorously defend the undocumented ones as soon as
they
> become documented, right? After all, your only concern is their
> legality, not the color of their skin.

We wouldn't give a shit if they were purple with green stripes, had
one
eye and a horn growing out of their head, they are still aliens who
cannot be assimilated into our culture, no matter what false oath they
mouth in order to get on the welfare rolls.
>
> Even if the 12 million undocumented folks (6 million latinos)
magically
> disappeared overnight, how are you planning to keep your "Cultural
> Supremacy"? - there are still 36 million latinos who are as American
as
> you and me.

There's no way in hell that you and your beloved Latrinos will ever be
Real Americans
like me. My ancestors fought and bled and died for this country. What
have Latrinos ever done for their countries, besides emigrate as fast
as possible?

Some ethnic cleansing is definitely indicated. Post your address and
I'll be right over to ethnically cleanse the space you're unlawfully
occupying."

So Is this a sane and rational person?