It would appear that to be honest to the tradition of Texas Chili, one must
put beans in the boiling pot, but it is perfectly acceptable to put beans on
the side of the dish to allow the eater the option of a tad of beans with
the delectable chili along with whatever else may be on the plate such as
rice, bread, tortillas or whatnot.

Makes perfect sense to me. In fact so perfect that Texas Chili is no
different than a good Mexican mole in that the mole is nothing but turkey or
chicken cooked in a delightful combinations of chiles, chocolate, peanut
butter and the like, served on a pilaf of rice on a plate along with a scoop
of beans on the other half.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But if you study all the responses of Texas Chili
experts here and other forums I have exposed this question, this seems to be
the universal conclusion.

Texas Chili is chile and meat served with or without beans and other
condiments such as bread, tortillas, rice or potatoes.

Makes sense to me!

OOps... first sentence... one must NOT put beans in the pot....

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
news
It would appear that to be honest to the tradition of Texas Chili, one
must
put beans in the boiling pot, but it is perfectly acceptable to put beans
on
the side of the dish to allow the eater the option of a tad of beans with
the delectable chili along with whatever else may be on the plate such as
rice, bread, tortillas or whatnot.

Makes perfect sense to me. In fact so perfect that Texas Chili is no
different than a good Mexican mole in that the mole is nothing but turkey
or
chicken cooked in a delightful combinations of chiles, chocolate, peanut
butter and the like, served on a pilaf of rice on a plate along with a
scoop
of beans on the other half.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But if you study all the responses of Texas Chili
experts here and other forums I have exposed this question, this seems to
be
the universal conclusion.

Texas Chili is chile and meat served with or without beans and other
condiments such as bread, tortillas, rice or potatoes.

Makes sense to me!

On Mar 22, 6:51?pm, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:

Makes perfect sense to me. In fact so perfect that Texas Chili is no
different than a good Mexican mole in that the mole is nothing but turkey or
chicken cooked in a delightful combinations of chiles, chocolate, peanut
butter and the like, served on a pilaf of rice on a plate along with a scoop
of beans on the other half.

So far as the naming of Mexican dishes is concerned, maybe the problem
is that English-speaking people have such a problem making out what
Mexicans are saying. It's hard enough when the words are unfamiliar,
then the accent compounds the problem by seeming to speed up the words
spoken.

The listener wants to shorten and simplify the name of any dish to the
shortest single word he can remember.

Pueblo-style mole with turkey is Mole Poblano de Guajalote, but
Americans tend to just say "mole" when they talk about it.

Texas "chili" is properly called "chile con carne de res", but folks
will just say "chili" and expect to get it their way.

I would expect New Mexico style Chile Colorado to be made with red
chiles and chunks of beef, and
Chile Verde to be made with pork, unless otherwise specified on a
menu.

If I was making a plate with mole whatever, I would put the rice on
one side, the meat or fowl in the center, and the beans on the other
side of the plate.

I would never think of putting mole on top of Arroz Mexicano or Arroz
Rojo, or Arroz Amarillo, but it might be OK over Arroz Blanco if I had
a lot of the mole left over.

I have been served Mole Poblano made with half a roasted chicken
coated with mole, but it wasn't sloppy wet with mole, it was more like
eating barbecued chicken with a thin layer of mole on it.

The next time I got Mole Poblano, it was just a slice of chicken
breast in a brown mole. I asked the lady at the counter if their Mole
was made with turkey and she asked me how I knew that Mexicans made it
with turkey back home.

Americans just didn't know about Mole Poblano.

I told her that I'd read about Mole Poblano and had eaten it once
before.

I couldn't complain that their Mole Poblano was made with chicken
breast, I was lucky to get it at all.

It was the first time I ever saw Mole Poblano on a wall menu in a
taqueria, and I could hardly expect it to be served as elaborately or
traditionally as it might be served at a traditional Navidad comida.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But if you study all the responses of Texas Chili
experts here and other forums I have exposed this question, this seems to be
the universal conclusion.

Texas Chili is chile and meat served with or without beans and other
condiments such as bread, tortillas, rice or potatoes.

Makes sense to me!

It should surprise no one that, as in all other regions of the world,
there are specialties that are prepared in a traditional way. Without
too much detail, I hope, there are Maryland Crab Cakes, New England
Clam Chowder, Manhattan Clam Chowder, San Francisco Cioppino, New
Mexico Green and Red Chile, Cincinnati Chili (or Skyline Chili), etc.,
etc.

Texans have made chili since the cattle drives north since it was an
independent Republic in the 1830's. To have a "traditional" Texas
chili shouldn't hairlip any posters here. "Traditional" Texas chili is
made with hand cut beef... NOT hamburger meat. It hasn't
traditionally been made with tomatoes (but many do), as even though
beef was available on the trails, tomatoes weren't. Water could be
boiled and was available... spices were dried and used, salt and
pepper were available. So, traditional Texas chili is a stew made
with salt, pepper, cubed beef, water, ground chilis, cumin, oregano
(and other dried spices, as they were available and there were
personal preferences). Other "chili's" have sprung up all over the
country... that served in Ohio has its roots in Greece, as a Greek
immigrant to Ohio started making "Skyline" chili in the 1940's. Chili
in Ohio is "traditionally" served on spaghetti and has chocolate,
cinnamon and beans in it.

Most of those with any knowledge of food history will tell you that
chili, as it is perceived around the U.S., was first made in Texas...
it's the official "State Dish" of Texas. While beans aren't an
ingredient in traditional Texas chili, many add them to their chili.
In the world of purists, beans are considered "filler" originally
added to chili because they are cheap and stretch the meat. Those who
make chili the way I do see no need to stretch it... or to dilute the
flavor av a good marbled chuck beef cut by hand. That's just a matter
of taste and personal preference. For some reason, because chili is
such a wonderful dish... and it is on tables all over the U.S., there
seems to be a hesitancy to allow Texas to have a "traditional" dish
made in a traditional way. I'd like to tell those in the northeast
that my chowder is better, because I have made it this way, or that
way (which I don't... I use a traditional Maine recipe). However,
most of us in this group take great pride in the fact that we like to
make regional Mexican specialties in the authentic way with
traditional ingredients. We will even grind our dried chilis to make
a powder. Yet, when making regional specialties from around the U.S.,
we will argue that our local alterations make it better. I grew up in
Texas and, outside of a school lunchroom, I never tasted beans in
chili until I moved to Ohio in the late 50's. In the school, they
added beans to stretch the limited dollars to feed students.

I was in a food market in Houston buying a chuck roast to make chili
and was talking with a very nice lady who had moved to Houston from
Ohio. I told her the meat was for chili and she asked me what kind of
beans I used. I said that I didn't put beans in my chili (I DO make
drunken beans as a separate dish and serve on the side). She said "In
Ohio, we pretty much call anything with beans in it "chili". That's
fine... I'm sure that everything she makes tastes great... just not my
style when I make it.

I guess what chaps me the most, is that I frequently read in news
groups accounts of people making chili with every imaginable
ingredient and saying that they have always made it that way. I don't
understand how a person who posts in a food news group has never had
the curiosity to, at least, try an authentic version of a dish that he/
she likes. Normally, foodies are a little more adventurous.

As a frequent contestant in chili cookoffs (with First Prize
trophies), as well as a frequent judge in them, I feel I make an
excellent bowl of chili. The Chili Appreciation Society of America,
which sanctions most of the chili competitions in America, allows no
fillers at all (no rice... no beans... no spaghetti, etc.). Does that
mean when you make a bowl of chili out of hamburger meat, or turkey,
or full of tomatoes and chocolate and beans, that is isn't any good?
Certainly not... it tastes great. President Lyndon Johnson used to
add RoTel to his Pedernales River Chili... and it was delicious. The
recipe is still around and is made frequently in Texas. Just allow a
regional specialty to exist and, maybe someday, have the curiosity to
make a pot of and broaden your horizons a little. This isn't aimed at
you, Wayne, as I'm sure that you and the Gallop have had the curiosity
to make an authentic pot of Texas chili.

I've been cooking in chili cookoffs since 1973... the same length of
time that I've cooked in Fajita competitions in South Texas on the
banks of the Rio Grande.

Regards,

Jack

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


Correct me if I'm wrong. But if you study all the responses of Texas
Chili
experts here and other forums I have exposed this question, this seems
to be
the universal conclusion.

Texas Chili is chile and meat served with or without beans and other
condiments such as bread, tortillas, rice or potatoes.

Makes sense to me!

It should surprise no one that, as in all other regions of the world,
there are specialties that are prepared in a traditional way. Without
too much detail, I hope, there are Maryland Crab Cakes, New England
Clam Chowder, Manhattan Clam Chowder, San Francisco Cioppino, New
Mexico Green and Red Chile, Cincinnati Chili (or Skyline Chili), etc.,
etc.

Texans have made chili since the cattle drives north since it was an
independent Republic in the 1830's. To have a "traditional" Texas
chili shouldn't hairlip any posters here. "Traditional" Texas chili is
made with hand cut beef... NOT hamburger meat. It hasn't
traditionally been made with tomatoes (but many do), as even though
beef was available on the trails, tomatoes weren't. Water could be
boiled and was available... spices were dried and used, salt and
pepper were available. So, traditional Texas chili is a stew made
with salt, pepper, cubed beef, water, ground chilis, cumin, oregano
(and other dried spices, as they were available and there were
personal preferences). Other "chili's" have sprung up all over the
country... that served in Ohio has its roots in Greece, as a Greek
immigrant to Ohio started making "Skyline" chili in the 1940's. Chili
in Ohio is "traditionally" served on spaghetti and has chocolate,
cinnamon and beans in it.

Most of those with any knowledge of food history will tell you that
chili, as it is perceived around the U.S., was first made in Texas...
it's the official "State Dish" of Texas. While beans aren't an
ingredient in traditional Texas chili, many add them to their chili.
In the world of purists, beans are considered "filler" originally
added to chili because they are cheap and stretch the meat. Those who
make chili the way I do see no need to stretch it... or to dilute the
flavor av a good marbled chuck beef cut by hand. That's just a matter
of taste and personal preference. For some reason, because chili is
such a wonderful dish... and it is on tables all over the U.S., there
seems to be a hesitancy to allow Texas to have a "traditional" dish
made in a traditional way. I'd like to tell those in the northeast
that my chowder is better, because I have made it this way, or that
way (which I don't... I use a traditional Maine recipe). However,
most of us in this group take great pride in the fact that we like to
make regional Mexican specialties in the authentic way with
traditional ingredients. We will even grind our dried chilis to make
a powder. Yet, when making regional specialties from around the U.S.,
we will argue that our local alterations make it better. I grew up in
Texas and, outside of a school lunchroom, I never tasted beans in
chili until I moved to Ohio in the late 50's. In the school, they
added beans to stretch the limited dollars to feed students.

I was in a food market in Houston buying a chuck roast to make chili
and was talking with a very nice lady who had moved to Houston from
Ohio. I told her the meat was for chili and she asked me what kind of
beans I used. I said that I didn't put beans in my chili (I DO make
drunken beans as a separate dish and serve on the side). She said "In
Ohio, we pretty much call anything with beans in it "chili". That's
fine... I'm sure that everything she makes tastes great... just not my
style when I make it.

I guess what chaps me the most, is that I frequently read in news
groups accounts of people making chili with every imaginable
ingredient and saying that they have always made it that way. I don't
understand how a person who posts in a food news group has never had
the curiosity to, at least, try an authentic version of a dish that he/
she likes. Normally, foodies are a little more adventurous.

As a frequent contestant in chili cookoffs (with First Prize
trophies), as well as a frequent judge in them, I feel I make an
excellent bowl of chili. The Chili Appreciation Society of America,
which sanctions most of the chili competitions in America, allows no
fillers at all (no rice... no beans... no spaghetti, etc.). Does that
mean when you make a bowl of chili out of hamburger meat, or turkey,
or full of tomatoes and chocolate and beans, that is isn't any good?
Certainly not... it tastes great. President Lyndon Johnson used to
add RoTel to his Pedernales River Chili... and it was delicious. The
recipe is still around and is made frequently in Texas. Just allow a
regional specialty to exist and, maybe someday, have the curiosity to
make a pot of and broaden your horizons a little. This isn't aimed at
you, Wayne, as I'm sure that you and the Gallop have had the curiosity
to make an authentic pot of Texas chili.

I've been cooking in chili cookoffs since 1973... the same length of
time that I've cooked in Fajita competitions in South Texas on the
banks of the Rio Grande.

Regards,

Jack

..
As I read your history of Chili I though of the plains Indians before the
conquest and I visualized pemmican being torn into small pieces and boiled
into a thick sauce as the fore-runner to today's chili. Then my mind
wandered to the 'rastro' (slaughterhouse) in Guadalajara where birria is
birria. Again, finely chopped meat (goat for the most part or beef) boiled
in rich chile sauce to the consistency for scooping into a taco without
dripping too much. Then I remember a friend of ours from Hungary who made us
Hungarian Goulash and it was chopped beef and a ton of Paprika. And of
course we all know that Paprika came from the Americas with the Spanish
after the conquest.

My mind wanders to the riverbank in San Antonio where the ladies might be
collecting the droppings from the slaughterhouses and cooking them overnight
in ground chile sauce then selling the chili in the open market starting
early in the morning.

Gad! This chili thing could make a great story for the History Channel!

Wayne

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
news
It would appear that to be honest to the tradition of Texas Chili, one must
put beans in the boiling pot, but it is perfectly acceptable to put beans on
the side of the dish to allow the eater the option of a tad of beans with
the delectable chili along with whatever else may be on the plate such as
rice, bread, tortillas or whatnot.

Makes perfect sense to me. In fact so perfect that Texas Chili is no
different than a good Mexican mole in that the mole is nothing but turkey or
chicken cooked in a delightful combinations of chiles, chocolate, peanut
butter and the like, served on a pilaf of rice on a plate along with a scoop
of beans on the other half.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But if you study all the responses of Texas Chili
experts here and other forums I have exposed this question, this seems to be
the universal conclusion.

Texas Chili is chile and meat served with or without beans and other
condiments such as bread, tortillas, rice or potatoes.

Makes sense to me!

One of the theories is that thinly sliced beef was layered between opened fresh
chilies and then dried to make a "brick" of preserved meat. Slices or chunks
were boiled with or without beans as a staple food on the open range. As I
mentioned this is a theory that seems reasonable, especially when one considers
the 1/2 amino acid provided by the almighty frijoles.

As far as a relationship between mole & Texas Chili that's like comparing
Strawberries Romanoff to beef Stroganoff because they both came from Russia.

Dimitri

On Mar 23, 7:01?am, "Jack Tyler" wrote:

Texans have made chili since the cattle drives north since it was an
independent Republic in the 1830's.

I found a little book in the library, don't remember what the name
was, but it was about the excesses of cowboy style cooking on the
trail. One recipe was for porterhouse steak. It went into great detail
about the slaughtering and dressing of a whole steer to provide enough
steak to feed just 6 or 7 cowboys...

"The Galloping Gourmand" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 23, 7:01?am, "Jack Tyler" wrote:

Texans have made chili since the cattle drives north since it was an
independent Republic in the 1830's.

I found a little book in the library, don't remember what the name
was, but it was about the excesses of cowboy style cooking on the
trail. One recipe was for porterhouse steak. It went into great detail
about the slaughtering and dressing of a whole steer to provide enough
steak to feed just 6 or 7 cowboys...


Reading the Lewis and Clark history reveals huge quantities of buffalo and
other game to keep their small group fed. You wonder how much of the critter
was tossed into the river if it took one head to feed six or seven.

Interesting.

On Mar 23, 9:15 am, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:
"The Galloping Gourmand" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Mar 23, 7:01?am, "Jack Tyler" wrote:

Texans have made chili since the cattle drives north since it was an
independent Republic in the 1830's.

I found a little book in the library, don't remember what the name
was, but it was about the excesses of cowboy style cooking on the
trail. One recipe was for porterhouse steak. It went into great detail
about the slaughtering and dressing of a whole steer to provide enough
steak to feed just 6 or 7 cowboys...

Reading the Lewis and Clark history reveals huge quantities of buffalo and
other game to keep their small group fed. You wonder how much of the critter
was tossed into the river if it took one head to feed six or seven.

Interesting.

I'm sure that there were excesses... but, remember that the cowboys
were employees of the owners of the cattle. The owner was paid by the
head for live arrival. In most cases, excess wasn't an option to
cowhands. Beef was also dried along the trip... however, one thing is
for sure... beef cooked in stew and chili was cut into cubes to cook
into tender morsels... not ground into BB's like hamburger meat. Even
though all cuts were available for cooking into stew and chili, ranch
hands understood the value of heavily marbled cheap cuts, such as
chuck, for this purpose... and loved steaks, too. So, the cheaper
cuts went into stews and the better cuts were steaks.

Jack

"Jack Tyler" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 23, 9:15 am, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:
"The Galloping Gourmand" wrote in
ooglegroups.com... On Mar
23, 7:01?am, "Jack Tyler" wrote:

Texans have made chili since the cattle drives north since it was an
independent Republic in the 1830's.

I found a little book in the library, don't remember what the name
was, but it was about the excesses of cowboy style cooking on the
trail. One recipe was for porterhouse steak. It went into great detail
about the slaughtering and dressing of a whole steer to provide enough
steak to feed just 6 or 7 cowboys...

Reading the Lewis and Clark history reveals huge quantities of buffalo
and
other game to keep their small group fed. You wonder how much of the
critter
was tossed into the river if it took one head to feed six or seven.

Interesting.

I'm sure that there were excesses... but, remember that the cowboys
were employees of the owners of the cattle. The owner was paid by the
head for live arrival. In most cases, excess wasn't an option to
cowhands. Beef was also dried along the trip... however, one thing is
for sure... beef cooked in stew and chili was cut into cubes to cook
into tender morsels... not ground into BB's like hamburger meat. Even
though all cuts were available for cooking into stew and chili, ranch
hands understood the value of heavily marbled cheap cuts, such as
chuck, for this purpose... and loved steaks, too. So, the cheaper
cuts went into stews and the better cuts were steaks.

Jack

This is becoming an illuminating thread! I keep thinking of why chili did
not migrate south into Mexico and all I can think of is that beef is not
that interesting to any Mexican I know or have known. In fact, my mother's
recipes suggest not using beef because of it's lack of taste. Better to use
pork, chicken and turkey. And for sure every cell of a pig is used one way
or other. Beef is relegated to street taco vendors who smoke up the
neighborhood with grilled flank steak for tacos de carne asada. Most of
'civilized' Mexico prefer tacos al pastor (goat, lamb or pork), tacos de
carnitas (pork) or tacos de barbacoa (sheep). The only place in Mexico
where beef is the prefered meat is Monterrey, but neck and neck with cabrito
(Kid).

Wayne

On Mar 23, 8:15?am, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:

Reading the Lewis and Clark history reveals huge quantities of buffalo and
other game to keep their small group fed. You wonder how much of the critter
was tossed into the river if it took one head to feed six or seven.

OTOH, it is well known that the Native Americans ate every bit of the
buffalo and nothing was thrown away.

I am searching for excerpts from the diary of my GG grandfather's
cousin and images of his artifacts right now.

He describes eating raw buffalo liver and buffalo tripe at a fur
trading post along the Missouri river in 1843. He was famous in his
profession, but I cannot reveal his name in this group.

"The Galloping Gourmand" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 23, 8:15?am, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:

Reading the Lewis and Clark history reveals huge quantities of buffalo
and
other game to keep their small group fed. You wonder how much of the
critter
was tossed into the river if it took one head to feed six or seven.

OTOH, it is well known that the Native Americans ate every bit of the
buffalo and nothing was thrown away.

I am searching for excerpts from the diary of my GG grandfather's
cousin and images of his artifacts right now.

He describes eating raw buffalo liver and buffalo tripe at a fur
trading post along the Missouri river in 1843. He was famous in his
profession, but I cannot reveal his name in this group.


Looking forward to more on your grandfather's diary. Interesting!

On Mar 23, 12:58 pm, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:
"Jack Tyler" wrote in message

all I can think of is that beef is not
that interesting to any Mexican I know or have known. In fact, my mother's
recipes suggest not using beef because of it's lack of taste. Better to use
pork, chicken and turkey. And for sure every cell of a pig is used one way
or other. Beef is relegated to street taco vendors who smoke up the
neighborhood with grilled flank steak for tacos de carne asada. Most of
'civilized' Mexico prefer tacos al pastor (goat, lamb or pork), tacos de
carnitas (pork) or tacos de barbacoa (sheep). The only place in Mexico
where beef is the prefered meat is Monterrey, but neck and neck with cabrito
(Kid).

Wayne

It's also interesting that Texas is known for beef barbecue (brisket,
etc.)... but, Texans love ribs and I have no use for beef ribs, as
they have no flavor other than what you mop, or dip them in. Go to
95% of the barbecue joints in Texas and Pork Ribs are what to order.

By the way, I am also a serious gumbo cook... and was looking, some
time ago, at the various types of gumbo that are made. At the bottom
of the list was dog gumbo. A coonass will eat ANYTHING. By the way,
in the world of gumbo cooking, there are 3 rules. The rules a
Rule #1) 1st, you make a roux; Rule # 2) 1st, you make a roux; Rule #
3) 1st, you make a roux.

Jack

"Jack Tyler" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 23, 12:58 pm, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:
"Jack Tyler" wrote in message

all I can think of is that beef is not
that interesting to any Mexican I know or have known. In fact, my
mother's
recipes suggest not using beef because of it's lack of taste. Better to
use
pork, chicken and turkey. And for sure every cell of a pig is used one
way
or other. Beef is relegated to street taco vendors who smoke up the
neighborhood with grilled flank steak for tacos de carne asada. Most of
'civilized' Mexico prefer tacos al pastor (goat, lamb or pork), tacos de
carnitas (pork) or tacos de barbacoa (sheep). The only place in Mexico
where beef is the prefered meat is Monterrey, but neck and neck with
cabrito
(Kid).

Wayne

It's also interesting that Texas is known for beef barbecue (brisket,
etc.)... but, Texans love ribs and I have no use for beef ribs, as
they have no flavor other than what you mop, or dip them in. Go to
95% of the barbecue joints in Texas and Pork Ribs are what to order.

By the way, I am also a serious gumbo cook... and was looking, some
time ago, at the various types of gumbo that are made. At the bottom
of the list was dog gumbo. A coonass will eat ANYTHING. By the way,
in the world of gumbo cooking, there are 3 rules. The rules a
Rule #1) 1st, you make a roux; Rule # 2) 1st, you make a roux; Rule #
3) 1st, you make a roux.

Jack

You'd probably laugh your head off at the way I make gravy for our
Thanksgiving and other occasions. But I think it's the basic Roux method. I
use the drippings from the roast, grease and all, put in pan, add flour bit
by bit, stirring constantly, keep it going as the liquid evaporates and the
roux get's thicker and browner. Then toward the end I add milk or broth or
combination and stirr the bejeezus while doing it. I end up with the best
damned gravy my inlaws and outlaws have ever enjoyed.

I learned this from my Mexican maids who taught my mom, who taught me in her
later years. The maids were from Veracruz, in and around San Rafael, founded
by French settlers from God knows what time-frame. Probably WWI.

You'd probably laugh your head off at the way I make gravy for our
Thanksgiving and other occasions. But I think it's the basic Roux method. I
use the drippings from the roast, grease and all, put in pan, add flour bit
by bit, stirring constantly, keep it going as the liquid evaporates and the
roux get's thicker and browner. Then toward the end I add milk or broth or
combination and stirr the bejeezus while doing it.

What other way is there to make gravy?

Jack