Older discussions can be found in the archives:

Welcome to the Roaring Twenties, Wikivoyagers! Talk page messages for me should be left here, or else please see the archives (right) for older discussions.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi, Andy. I would push back on the idea that chorizos are not American. Cal-Mex, Tex-Mex and New Mexican cuisines are American, and they're arguably more deeply rooted than American-Chinese cuisine (which I would nevertheless call an American cuisine, too), in that a lot of the cooks we're talking about are doubtless descendants of people whom the border crossed, not vice versa, and/or whose families have lived on both sides of the border and moved back and forth for a long, long time. I think the problem here was the phrasing. We should instead say that chorizos are part of Cal-Mex cuisine (etc. - that's the Mexican-American cuisine I know best). What do you think about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If chorizo can unproblematically be called "Mexican", when it is in reality from Iberia, by the same vein it can be called "American" if it fits into an American culinary tradition. Having said that, I know of chorizo curers based close to me, yet I wouldn't say chorizo was therefore British; at most I would say those are instances of a Spanish-style sausage made in Britain.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but there are no Mexican styles native to Great Britain, whereas there is a huge amount of land the U.S. grabbed from Mexico in the 19th century. Therefore, we have local Mexican styles with deep roots. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
And by the way, Spanish chorizo and Mexican chorizo are not the same. See Mexican cuisine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not always clear what to do with what I would call diaspora cuisines. I guess the question is, for the purposes of the title of this article, do we define the word "American" as pertaining to the physical landmass called the United States and all the cuisines that are eaten within its borders, or does it posit the existence of "American-ness" as a distinct strain of culture with its own foodways and other traditions? I realize this is a loaded question, especially in these political times, but given the fact that in an almost literal sense, every kind of food is available and has a following in the U.S., we have no choice but to go the latter route. The origin of American Chinese food was Chinese laborers originally from Guangdong, who'd immigrated to the American West to work on the railroad or in mines, mocking up as close of a facsimile of Cantonese cuisine as they could using local ingredients. That, to me, is the continuation of culturally Chinese foodways in a different physical location, which remains true of today's American Chinese food even though many people who cook it were born in the U.S. (and some aren't even of Chinese ancestry). The fact that those same original immigrants began to sell their food to white customers, and in many cases adapt the recipes to their tastes, I'd say is enough to justify the existence of the "American Chinese food" section in this article (albeit I don't like the way the article is organized in this regard; I've been planning, when I get the time, to move some of the content into an "Americanized adaptations of foreign cuisines" section which would also include the info on pizza, American sushi, Tex-Mex, etc.) Mexican chorizo is more of a gray area, but ultimately I think the same principle applies: despite the fact that chorizo has been eaten in California, New Mexico, etc. for centuries, those regions were part of Mexico until the mid-1800s, and the cultural continuity of chorizo is much more with Mexican cuisine than U.S. cuisine. We can certainly talk about the influence that Mexican and other Latin American cuisine has had on that of the U.S., but in the case of an ingredient whose use is pretty much limited to consciously Mexican, or at least consciously Mexican-influenced, contexts, you'd still have to treat it for the purposes of this article as Mexican food. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
We're East Coasters, but I've made many visits to California and have also visited New Mexico, and if you insist on calling the Mexican cuisines of the former Mexican states that border on Mexico "Americanized adaptations of foreign cuisines", we are fundamentally in disagreement. Huevos rancheros is a very common breakfast in eateries in California that do -not- represent themselves as Mexican. What's foreign in the U.S. is specifically Yucateca cuisine, to take one example. If you have friends from any of the states we're discussing, I wouldn't prejudge their answers, but you might ask them whether they consider a dish like huevos rancheros to be foreign and whether they consider their state's version of Mexican cuisine foreign. It would be at least interesting to have their thoughts on that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Admittedly much of this is in a grey area. Here in Chicago, there is a large Mexican community that also has a long history, to the point that whether or not authentic taquerias should be considered "foreign" is debatable; some of these are now run by second-generation descendants of Mexican immigrants who were born in the U.S., who I'm pretty sure most of us would for all intents and purposes consider to be American. Just as an analogy, in Singapore and Malaysia, although char siu originally came from Guangdong in China, the Cantonese community has been so well established that we don't even consider the dish to be foreign anymore. And likewise, although curries originally came from India, the Indian community is so well-established in Singapore that we no longer consider them to be foreign cuisine. The dog2 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being on vandal patrol today.Edit

Have a butter tart (or several). Ground Zero (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)