"The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in message
oups.com...
--- snip ----> You probably consider anything with chile in it to be
Mexican?

Absolutely not. But I hesitate to offer any recipe which does not
contain chiles, being wary of those who believe "no hay comida sin
chiles".

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

There are millions of posted recipes for everything I mentioned for the File
a la Tampiquena, which by the way, can be ordered from most upper class
Mexican restaurants and made to their own version, but pretty much following
what I described. My family first 'discovered' this wonderful meal on the
long ago running passenger train from El Paso to Mexico City... sometime in
1970. It is a true delight!

Protocol... yes, of course, we need more than one person to reach even a
basic agreement. Which I have been proposing since the days this forum began
in CompuServe with Linda as our champion poster and contributor.

I think it's a fun project... Would an armadillo taco be possible in the
Queen's court before 1520? Not important, and certainly not as important as
any of the daytime TV programs or the most popular American Hero or whatever
it's called. But when time is on our hands, we humans seem to look for
things to keep us busy. It's your choice to read my stuff or not. To
contribute or not.

As to the chile thing... I really do not agree with you. Few 'real' Mexican
(south of the tropic of Cancer) recipes call for hot. A chile ancho (smoked
and/or dried Chile Poblano) is not normally hot. Most cooks cull the hot
ones from the batch knowing that Mexicans do not like hot in their meals
unless they add it to taste by themselves. Believe it or not, this is a fact
of life for Mexicans.

So you see? You are already helping with the definition of Mexican food...
you say chile must be present in the recipe. I claim chile is served in a
nearby bowl in the form of salsas. Let the eater heat to taste.

Wayne