Hacker News Reader

Comment by RosanaAnaDana | Hacker News Reader

You understand neither burritos nor tacos.

Aren’t tacos very different things in different places? You and the person you answer to may be talking past each other if you have a different idea of what a tacos is in your mind.

Just for the anecdote, I’m back from France and tacos there are a weird sandwich. But I’ve always seen them made using a hard-shell made of corn, that breaks way too easy. And I believe that’s considered heretic in the US, so I’m not even sure what you would expect an actual tacos to be!

In America, hard-shell tacos are simultaneously heretical and popular. It's polarizing, like pineapples on pizza.

Honestly the disdain for them is a _little_ silly when they're not that different from a tostada (in fact, Taco Bell, in their failed foray into Mexico, called their tacos "Tacostadas" to give Mexican customers the idea).

What kind of taco do you picture when you think of a hard-shelled taco?

I picture American tacos (which are not good tacos, though I wouldn’t say I “disdain” them per se).

Oh well ground beef with “taco seasoning” is not necessarily that compelling. But the concept of a hard shell for tacos itself seems not that different from the impulse behind tostadas (or taquitos or flautas).

> in their failed foray into Mexico

Really, they actually tried this? What were they thinking??

It's not really "Mexican food" and they weren't trying to get in that lane but to be something different. It's not that crazy. Panda Express has been somewhat successful in Asia.

Marmite is polarising, you can legitimately like or dislike it. What you're suggesting is inflammatory legitimisation of an abhorrent practice.

Marmite hard shelled tacos, with shrimp

Prawns*

And pineapple?

This works, I might add watercress.

and nutella

and ketchup

And some dental floss for after!

hard shell tacos are easy to find in the southwest and much different to what taco bell might serve. They are just fried corn tortillas folded. That was the original inspiration of to crunchy taco, execution just got iffy as they scaled up.

>But I’ve always seen them made using a hard-shell made of corn, that breaks way too easy. And I believe that’s considered heretic in the US

Certainly not heretic. You'll find hard-shell corn tacos in pretty much any US grocery store. They do break easily but they're what I would tend to use for a taco with ground beef. Otherwise, I'd usually use soft corn.

I usually get two, break them up and make a taco salad, much easier to eat and less likely to ruin a shirt. If I can't set up that situation I get the soft tacos.

Oh that's an interesting idea. Never heard of a taco salad.

Go ahead. Explain yourself.

A taco is a small, to be held in the hand, street food predating the Spanish empire in southern Mexico and central america (Parker, 2006). It is composed of a small amount of meat or fish on a corn flatbread, usually with some amount of pico de gallo or salsa, and often with lime over it. Some key elements is that its a 'single ingredient' dish, it be hand held, and it be served fresh (traditionally as street food). Carne asada, al pastor, fried fish, etc. represent reasonable taco fillings and are not 'combined' with other, filler type ingredients, like beans or rice. There is another mexican dish, the tostada which incorporates those ingredients. A tostada is not a taco. A taco needs to be able to be picked up and eaten with one hand. That means it can not be over filled and it shouldn't be. If you want more food, order more tacos.

A burrito is as well a single ingredient food (read: no fillers like beans and rice unless that is specifically the single ingredient in the burrito). The primary difference is that a burrito is usually on flour tortillas and is wrapped to be held with two hands, often having substantially more content than a taco, which is specifically intended to be eaten with one hand.

The biggest criticism I'm raising is the American (outside of border states like CA, AZ, NM, and TX where they don't put up with that shit) tendency to accept cheaper, filler ingredients as primary to the contents of a burrito. This is a serious departure, where in border states and mexico, burritos might come with rice and beans on the side, they are never substituted as primary ingredients.

The broadest point is that there are many many ways of combining some filling, tortillas, and other ingredients. Just because it has those components does not a taco or burrito make.

Parker, 2006, https://web.archive.org/web/20080502160526/http://www.iccjou...

Your argument is based on a prescriptive definition of “burrito” which does not match how the vast majority of English speakers use it. I can make any arbitrary taxonomy work by simply redefining the terms in a restrictive way, but in doing so, nothing is accomplished. It’s a form of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, in this case no true burrito.

Then we must decide whether it is the English-speaking or Mexican Spanish meaning of the word 'burrito' that we are even discussing. If we want to be accurate, we should define our goals in a specific way, which hasn't been done here.

There are borrowed words in English where the meaning in the borrowing language is different than in the original (source) language. There are even terms, such as this one in Te Ao Maori, 'Takatāpui', where the meaning is intentionally different depending on whether the speaker is speaking Te Ao Maori or English, because of careful and intentional distinctions about preserving the meanings of words[1].

Things can get even more complicated when we attempt to remove our native language as a default frame-of-reference, such as attempting to determine what exactly is correct (or not, and if not, how) in the following conversation:

> Q: "What does 'sushi' mean?"

> A: "It's Japanese for 'burrito'.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takatāpui

"Burrito" is not a word of English origin...

> The biggest criticism I'm raising is the American (outside of border states like CA, AZ, NM, and TX where they don't put up with that shit) tendency to accept cheaper, filler ingredients as primary to the contents of a burrito.

Having lived in San Diego and SF… they do indeed put up with that shit in many parts of those border states.

Fantastic comment, though. :)

I generally agree with most of your assessments and classifications, but: I can definitely eat a tostada with one hand (if it's crispy). To me, a taco is a folded tostada (when I worked at a mexican restaurant, we also had a bowl-shaped tostada ("salad in a bread bowl"). To me, that is a continuum. The ingredients are a bit less important (my preference is al pastor on a steamed soft corn tortilla).

The moment you "wrap" (fully enclose in a tubular way), I think it moves to a different part of the embedded space which includes all wraps (https://worldwrapps.com/). The mission-style burrito definitely has the "rice and beans inside" in addition to the primary (meat, veggie, whatever), this sounds very much like the "in Texas, chili doesn't have beans" argument.

This is a great description for the original, most pure definition of taco. However, people interpret foods differently over time and space (just look at what "pizza" has meant for different areas over time), and, in my opinion, this evolution is natural and shouldn't be looked down upon.

The pure definition, though, is still the common definition in most of Central America and in Latino communities. Feels odd to erase that correct, active definition because it was used for marketing unrelated things in unrelated places

On the other hand, having lived in Mexico for almost a decade now, these explanations tend to merely be nothing but the unholy combo of pedantry + incorrect, with a big component that smells a lot like "I just traveled to exotic lands and I will tell you how those people eat" or "I had a taco during my layover in <some Mexican city> and can tell you what all tacos are".

Because the reality is that you can find tacos and food items of many variations in Mexico (or wherever) that the people there will call a taco, and they'll do it without any of the sort of snobbery you find in these comments.

Like, tacos are a single ingredient food item? Then why can I find people slopping on any number of side items down the street in Guadalajara? And it's still labeled a taco? They really need to read HN and become illuminated. They're wrong.

Frankly, the idea that Mexican cuisine (or whichever cuisine) was frozen in some snapshot back in history—and anything they do eat since then is "incorrect"—does more to erase reality than pointing out that maybe the cuisine is much more varied than someone on HN thinks.

And all of this is said before even getting into regional variations like what happens to cuisines once they cross borders into different cultures. Americans eat hard-shell tacos? It's a lot more interesting to me to explore why that is than to roll our eyes at how people are ugh doing it wrong. Maybe artifacts of one culture changing when they enter other cultures is the beauty of culture rather something that needs to be corrected.

> Feels odd to erase that correct, active definition

I think this is because Americans feel big-brotherly protective (in a creepy way) about their Latin American communities.

Altered versions of e.g. Italian food (e.g. pasta carbonara with cream, deep dish pizza, submarine sandwiches, chicken parmesan), Japanese food (California roll, Philadelphia roll), Chinese food (fortune cookies, General Tso's chicken, beef and broccoli) don't cause similar reactions.

> Altered versions of e.g. Italian food (e.g. pasta carbonara with cream, deep dish pizza, submarine sandwiches, chicken parmesan) ... don't cause similar reactions.

Like hell they don't! Most of your examples are just ignorable new inventions, but the reinterpretation of spaghetti carbonara (not pasta carbonara, you heathen) as a shitty cream sauce? I'll go to the mat to decry that horrendously disgusting perversion.

Anyone that prefers that hot mess probably also puts ranch dressing on everything, including pizza, and thinks Velveeta "queso" is delicious.

Americans celebrated a fast food chain bringing back Mexican pizza recently. Other Americans never miss a chance to declare sushi rolls aren't proper sushi.

Let me know once people in the US stop referring to meat-filled pastry as "koláče". I was horrified to find out about that. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that one either.

Let me know once people in the US stop referring to meat-filled pastry as "koláče".

Kolaches mean different things in different parts of the U.S.

In Chicago, they're often filled with sweet things, and sold by mom-and-pop shops and bakeries.

In Houston, they're mainly for breakfast, with things like eggs, bacon, sausage, brisket, etc. and sold by chains like Shipley's and Kolache Factory: https://kolachefactory.com

Recently, the Houston version of kolaches has made inroads into Chicago: https://www.howdykolache.com

Yeah, and eggs, bacons, sausages, and briskets have no business being in a sweet dish such as koláč (which looks like this: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol%C3%A1%C4%8D#/media/Soubor:...).

That looks like a topless paczki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pączki

Paczki Day is almost as big a holiday in Chicago as Casimir Pulaski Day.

If pączki are anything like Czech koblihy (to which they bear an uncanny resemblance -- cf. https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobliha#/media/Soubor:Picswiss...), then their dough is must be very different from dough for koláče.

The only place I've seen kolatches (sp.) was fifty years ago in the little town of West, TX (and it's not really in West Texas, but more in between Fort Worth and Austin.) Those were pastries filled with various delicious things, including sausage and fruit.) I don't think I've ever seen kolatches anywhere else. I'd love to find more, and learn the difference. They are far from common in the USA sadly.

I'm not sure I could tell you anything more than Wikipedia can already tell you in my stead. Sausages simply have nothing to do with koláče; koláče are basically sweets. You wouldn't put a sausage in a cake either, I'm sure.

I sure as heck would put a sausage in a cake, and I do so frequently. It’s delicious, and it’s called “Pigs in a Blanket.”

https://reluctantentertainer.com/buttermilk-pancake-pigs-in-...

Isn't that massively stretching the definition of a "cake"? When I wrote "cake", I meant this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cake#/media/File:Pound_layer_c... -- do you put a sausage in those?

These all sound awesome, I think I will have to make one of them this weekend. The "Old Time Pork Cake" is calling to me.

https://www.texascooking.com/recipes/sausage-bundt-cake.htm

https://newfoundland.ws/christmas-old-time-pork-cake-recipe/

https://eatwithjean.com/pork-floss-roll-cake/

They can be found quite easily in Austin and New Orleans.

Never heard of 'em. Is it like a pasty?

It's supposed to look like this https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol%C3%A1%C4%8D#/media/Soubor:... , but apparently in the US, some people put meat in them, when they're actually supposed to be filled with prune plum spread ("povidla") or some other fruit filling, poppy seed filling, or quark.

Pasty - a term I did expect to see on HN.

Referring to the Finnish variety or other ?

Yep, I have a lot of family in Copper Country.

What exactly is a "single ingredient dish" to you? This "Pico de gallo" thing already consists of multiple ingredients -- or so Wikipedia tells me. So does salsa, if I understand it correctly. Your notion of "single ingredient" must be different from mine.

I assume they mean typically a single protein.

The ‘No true burrito’ argument.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

By this definition, eating a slice of New York Style pizza topped with pepperoni in the traditional way (folded in half, standing outside) is a taco. Which is patently absurd.

How 'bout this definition: I'll eat whatever I want, call it whatever I want, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, because this isn't France and you're never gonna get a law passed on it. As they say in various kink communities, "don't yuck my yum".

> As they say in various kink communities, "don't yuck my yum".

This is a disturbing way to put it, because I learned that phrase from my kids' preschool. :D

Heretic! To the fires with you! A taco uses tortillas...

I actually hate New York Style pizza, and one of the reasons is the crust is so thin and flat.

The other reason being you have to subject yourself to going to New York to get it, and nobody should have to do that to themselves.

But rice and beans taste good. Even rice and beans alone is really tasty. Wrap it up in a tortilla with hot sauce and sour cream.. delicious! The meat sweetens the deal, but I can easily enjoy a burrito with no meat.

Whether you call that a burrito or make up some other word for it makes little difference, it is what it is, and it tastes damn good. It tastes great whether you call it a burrito or a 'rice-and-beans wrap with pork'.

Who else survived from starving in college thanks to Taco Tuesdays? The trick was to make two tacos from one because it was always served with two layers of the flatbread. The flatbread was sometimes corn, sometimes flour, but it was always generously served double layers.

Curious which is the traditional, the soft taco or the hard shell we know of from that franchise with a bell?

historically, tacos were made soft (tortillas) but the tortilla can also be toasted to make it crispy. The taco is definitely one of the "truly from the old world, thing that people ate 4,000 years ago that is not too dissimilar to what you can get from a taco truck today"

Its not supposed to be flatbread though, its a tortilla

Wouldn't you place tortilla in the general flatbread category? Every culture has a flatbread.

I wouldn't even place it in bread category. Is a pie crust in a pie also flatbread?

> Every culture has a flatbread.

They do? Bread in any form is not a major element of every culture. The Hawaiian equivalent seems to have been poi, which isn't even solid.

Native Hawaiians had breadfruit.

A Navajo friend of mine made amazing flatbread. They call it Fry Bread. Tastes wonderful.

I'm always looking for counterexamples of my claim.

Following up in another way, Eskimo culture can be safely assumed to lack flatbread since the diet lacked pretty much any plant-based element. Any other non-agricultural cultures, like pygmies, would also lack the ability to produce bread. (Not to say they don't eat it today; pygmies are commercially entwined with the settled people around them.)

The obvious places to look are Polynesia (as mentioned), Australia, and sub-Saharan Africa. What are the indigenous flatbreads?

I guess now that I looked it up. Wikipedia calls it a flatbread but it has more in common with a biscuit since its unleavened and usually made with lard…

think of leavening (either via yeast or chemical means) and lard as just extra feature bits in the larger flatbread space.

We need to hang out in the park next to a taco truck and hash this out. The least convincing buys a round for all.

I've enjoyed many good breakfast burritos in Austin but won't oder them most places because, as you say, they tend to be stuffed with filler. Tacos can suffer from this too--I'm sure there must be some pork under all this cabbage--but you can usually get rid of some of the filler and there's not as much room to stuff a lot of it in anyway.

Holyshit, I concede! This is peak HN :-). Thanks for the lesson honestly.

That burrito definition excludes the Mission burrito, a grievous error.

Think of it like a feature in machine learning- there are many burritos, some of which have the "rice inside" bit and the "beans inside" bits set to one. Burritos themselves exist within wrappspace (https://worldwrapps.com/) which themselves are within the "self-contained food manifold".

> A burrito is as well a single ingredient food

No they're not.

What is the grain of that burrito wrapper?

If it's wheat, that's from German immigrants into what became Texas.

From one taco elitist to another, thank you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com