For years, an organisation of students at a liberal arts college has enjoyed getting together on a regular basis for Fajita Night, eating at a variety of Mexican restaurants..
The treat has something for everyone to hate, the taste, weapons-grade gas, messiness...
And some love fajitas; others picket every time, preferring burgers; and some, though the meal gives them agita, insist on chowing down as a show of solidarity with fajita-lovers.)
But now, the student group has decided to stop eating at restaurants, asking, What about Mexican restaurants that don't have Mexican food?
At its core, Fajita Night offered an extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a Mexican restaurant.
A local restaurant, Le Bistro Tres PC, began its life as a French restaurant, but now self-identifies as a Mexican restaurant, although the proprietors have not changed their menu and serve no Mexican dishes.
Because you see, there are many ways to be a Mexican restaurant. The students cited:
*Begun as a Mexican restaurant; identifies as Mexican.
*Begun as a Mexican restaurant; identifies as French.
*Begun as a Mexican restaurant; identifies as other.
*Begun as a Mexican restaurant;; does not identify as any kind of restaurant
*Begun as a French, or Chinese or Italian restaurant; identifies as Mexican.
*Begun as a French, or Chinese or Italian restaurant; identifies as fusion, many or fluid cuisine including Mexican.
*Begun as a French, AND Chinese AND Italian AND Mexican restaurant (fusion, what's on sale at the grocer's); identifies as a Mexican.
They seem to be leaving out restaurants begun either as Mexican or not which don't serve any food at all.
Why should THEY be made to feel less a restaurant?