I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?

I make my chili with pinto beans and either chopped/ground beef or ground
turkey and my family goes wild when I make it. No matter how big the pot,
it's gone in a couple of days.

So what's the deal?

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:01:23 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
> wrote:

>I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
>punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?

Don't worry about it. Some Texans still think they live in the biggest
state in the union.

--
Zilbandy

"Zilbandy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:01:23 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
> > wrote:
>
> >I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
> >punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?
>
> Don't worry about it. Some Texans still think they live in the biggest
> state in the union.
>
> --
> Zilbandy
OK, no argument there. But I'm looking for some kind of real reason of why
beans do not belong in a good chili. Could it be that the meat enzyme does
not mix with the bean enzyme? And thus some kind of latent fermentation
takes place in the human digestive system?

There must be a reason even if it can't be explained.

Any ideas?

On Mar 22, 3:01 pm, "Wayne Lundberg" >
wrote:
> I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
> punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?
>
> I make my chili with pinto beans and either chopped/ground beef or ground
> turkey and my family goes wild when I make it. No matter how big the pot,
> it's gone in a couple of days.
>
> So what's the deal?

Wayne, here's my opinion. This is something I wrote to this ng on this
subject in 1999. I still favor this approach.

"Whether to include beans is, IMO, personal preference and I happen
to
prefer not to, although I'm not adamant about it. I can't prove it,
but
I suspect that chili evolved without beans mixed in and I like to
stay
reasonably close to the original, simple stuff. A more important
reason is that I like to use beans as a side dish and like the flavor
of beans cooked with salt pork or bacon, cilantro, and green chiles,
usually fresh serranos or jalapeños. Mixing the beans into the chili
would lose that distinctive flavor. Same with tomatoes, which I'd
rather have as a fresh salsa or in Mexican rice. There are some
pretty
strange recipes out there, though, including some that seem more like
spaghetti sauce than chili con carne."

David, back from a short break

No real reason other than it seems to be a regional thing over what "should"
and "shouldn't" be in chili.
- Cindy

--
CDC

If you're going through hell, keep going
- Winston Churchill
"Wayne Lundberg" > wrote in message
...
>I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
> punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?
>
> I make my chili with pinto beans and either chopped/ground beef or ground
> turkey and my family goes wild when I make it. No matter how big the pot,
> it's gone in a couple of days.
>
> So what's the deal?
>
>
>

"dtwright37" > wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 22, 3:01 pm, "Wayne Lundberg" >
wrote:
> I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
> punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?
>
> I make my chili with pinto beans and either chopped/ground beef or ground
> turkey and my family goes wild when I make it. No matter how big the pot,
> it's gone in a couple of days.
>
> So what's the deal?

Wayne, here's my opinion. This is something I wrote to this ng on this
subject in 1999. I still favor this approach.

"Whether to include beans is, IMO, personal preference and I happen
to
prefer not to, although I'm not adamant about it. I can't prove it,
but
I suspect that chili evolved without beans mixed in and I like to
stay
reasonably close to the original, simple stuff. A more important
reason is that I like to use beans as a side dish and like the flavor
of beans cooked with salt pork or bacon, cilantro, and green chiles,
usually fresh serranos or jalapeños. Mixing the beans into the chili
would lose that distinctive flavor. Same with tomatoes, which I'd
rather have as a fresh salsa or in Mexican rice. There are some
pretty
strange recipes out there, though, including some that seem more like
spaghetti sauce than chili con carne."

David, back from a short break

------

Wayne he
Makes perfect sense David. I like my Mexican food without being cooked with
chile, as does my wife and others in the family. We like to add our own
salsas to whatever we are eating.

Your comment about separating the chili and beans makes perfect sense. Both
are distinct in texture and flavor. I like the idea of blending each
spoonful as we eat the delights.

I guess we grow up thinking that a bowl of chili has everything in it that
you need for a hearty daily meal. All together, mixed up, no separation, no
distinctive flavor, all blended into one bowl of a unique stew.

I can appreciate your approach. Makes good sense.

Thanks!

"CDC" <usenetATcafechatnoirDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> No real reason other than it seems to be a regional thing over what
"should"
> and "shouldn't" be in chili.
> - Cindy

Thanks Cindy, but what I'm looking for is the origins of these cultural
preferences. It's kind of like, "Well, grama always cut the last two inches
from the leg of lamb before putting it into the pot and the over" Only to
discover that gramma had a small pot and the leg was two inches too long.

I'm looking for the historical reason why beans are not popular in what is
known as a great Texas chili. I know New Mexico chilo use beans and I do in
my own cooking. But David has just put an interesting spin on this whole
thing.

Thanks!

Wayne

On Mar 22, 12:01?pm, "Wayne Lundberg" >
wrote:
> I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
> punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?

Because your friends like to argue and dominate other people
with their unfounded opinions on the way the world should be.
>
> I make my chili with pinto beans and either chopped/ground beef or ground
> turkey and my family goes wild when I make it. No matter how big the pot,
> it's gone in a couple of days.

It's your chile, do what you will. If it tastes good, people are going
to eat it. If it tastes bad, they won't.

If you're going to drown your meat, fish or fowl in chile sauce, put
whatever you want in there. Throw that road-killed armadillo in there.
If you can't get an armadillo, watch for
squashed possums and raccoons. ;-)

Drown the taste with chile. It's your esophagus that's at risk with
excess chile sauce.

Chile sauce is supposed to be a *vegetable-based* sauce to be applied
as lavishly or as sparingly as the individual prefers.

"Enchilada" does not refer to a rolled up tortilla in chile sauce, it
refers to *anything* in a chile sauce.

It would be as accurate to call "Chili con Carne" by the name
"Carne de Res Enchilada" or the version with beans "Carne de Res y
Frijoles Enchiladas".

The meat, fish, or fowl should be cooked as much as possible
separately, and then finished in the sauce, like the cooks down in
Oaxaca make their Mole Whatever.

Mole and chili are essentially the same dish. They are both stews.

A cook living in a village deep in Mexico would probably have multiple
cooking pots to make everything in, while chuckwagon cook on a Texas
cattle drive might have only one large pot to throw everything into,
and the beef of an uncastrated animal that was found dead along the
trail might
be very gamy, so they would drown the bad taste in excess chile sauce.
>
> So what's the deal?

Your friends like to argue and dominate other peoples' opinions
That's it in a nutshell.

On Mar 22, 3:45 pm, "Wayne Lundberg" >
wrote:

>I know New Mexico chilo use beans and I do in
> my own cooking. But David has just put an interesting spin on this whole
> thing.

I don't remember about beans in New Mexican chile when I lived in
Santa Fe, but I do remember that the cooking was distinctive, a hybrid
of Spanish/Mexican and Pueblo.

I'm remembering stacked blue-corn enchiladas, sometimes with a fried
egg on top, fry bread tacos, or just fry bead with honey, at the feast
days at the pueblos, and the stews in the restaurants with the
official New Mexico question, "red or green?" or "Christmas" if you
wanted both?

David

Wayne Lundberg wrote:
> I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
> punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?
>
> I make my chili with pinto beans and either chopped/ground beef or ground
> turkey and my family goes wild when I make it. No matter how big the pot,
> it's gone in a couple of days.
>
> So what's the deal?
>
>
>

dtwright37 was in fact correct in his statement

Beans in chili is just not the Texas way. Its adulteration. The best
chili does not have beans. Personally I think that adding beans to the best chili
is sort of silly, but harmless. However, normally Texans don't add beans to
the best chili, just to lower grade stuff.

Beans DO go very well with chili. I'm from Ft. Worth, and I say,
why not the real thing! Get genuine Ranch Style Beans (TM) and
eat them with the chili. That's what we all did as kids. These same
beans of course are absolutely required as a side dish for real Texas barbecue.
I also admit to


Doug McDonald

On Mar 22, 3:56?pm, Doug McDonald >
wrote:


> Beans DO go very well with chili. I'm from Ft. Worth, and I say,
> why not the real thing! Get genuine Ranch Style Beans (TM) and
> eat them with the chili.

And what is the red sauce that the canned beans come in, if it's not
chili?

If you eat "chili con carne" and "frijoles en chili", they are both
chili!

"Doug McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> Wayne Lundberg wrote:
> > I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
> > punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?
> >
> > I make my chili with pinto beans and either chopped/ground beef or
ground
> > turkey and my family goes wild when I make it. No matter how big the
pot,
> > it's gone in a couple of days.
> >
> > So what's the deal?
> >
> >
> >
>
> dtwright37 was in fact correct in his statement
>
> Beans in chili is just not the Texas way. Its adulteration. The best
> chili does not have beans. Personally I think that adding beans to the
best chili
> is sort of silly, but harmless. However, normally Texans don't add beans
to
> the best chili, just to lower grade stuff.
>
> Beans DO go very well with chili. I'm from Ft. Worth, and I say,
> why not the real thing! Get genuine Ranch Style Beans (TM) and
> eat them with the chili. That's what we all did as kids. These same
> beans of course are absolutely required as a side dish for real Texas
barbecue.
> I also admit to
>
>
> Doug McDonald
>
I think you hit the nail on the head. Makes sense to me. In Mexico the meal
usually has one thing on one side of the plate, like a beefsteak or
enchilada or rice, and on the other side of the plate some nice beans.

I'm starting to see the picture and it makes sense.

On Mar 22, 1:35 pm, "dtwright37" > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 3:01 pm, "Wayne Lundberg" >
> wrote:
>
> > I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
> > punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?
>
> > I make my chili with pinto beans and either chopped/ground beef or ground
> > turkey and my family goes wild when I make it. No matter how big the pot,
> > it's gone in a couple of days.
>
> > So what's the deal?
>
> Wayne, here's my opinion. This is something I wrote to this ng on this
> subject in 1999. I still favor this approach.
>
> "Whether to include beans is, IMO, personal preference and I happen
> to
> prefer not to, although I'm not adamant about it. I can't prove it,
> but
> I suspect that chili evolved without beans mixed in and I like to
> stay
> reasonably close to the original, simple stuff. A more important
> reason is that I like to use beans as a side dish and like the flavor
> of beans cooked with salt pork or bacon, cilantro, and green chiles,
> usually fresh serranos or jalapeños. Mixing the beans into the chili
> would lose that distinctive flavor. Same with tomatoes, which I'd
> rather have as a fresh salsa or in Mexican rice. There are some
> pretty
> strange recipes out there, though, including some that seem more like
> spaghetti sauce than chili con carne."
>
> David, back from a short break

A voice of reason. Well said.

Jack

On Mar 22, 1:01 pm, "Wayne Lundberg" >
wrote:
> I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
> punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?
>
> I make my chili with pinto beans and either chopped/ground beef or ground
> turkey and my family goes wild when I make it. No matter how big the pot,
> it's gone in a couple of days.
>
> So what's the deal?

>From this newsgroup, I'm surprised at your question. Look at it this
way. "Traditional" Mexican cooking has no cumin it it... however,
some make Mexican food with cumin in it. What's the big deal?
"Traditional" Texas chili has no beans in it... yet some make chili
with beans in it. Still, no big deal... it's a matter of
"traditional"... not whether, or not, it tastes good. That's all.

Jack

"David, back from a short break"

Good to see you and Jack handled that quite well and that I didn't miss
anything There are just so many nowdays trying to redefine recipes
according to their "Tradition", but they fail to define "whose tradition"
cuz they have no history. All they know is from what they read in travel
brochures and the Internet. But to my thinking these folks need to learn to
make it right first by learning chile flavors.

I like beans in my chili...


"The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 22, 12:01?pm, "Wayne Lundberg" >
> wrote:
>> I hear from my Texas 'friends' that putting beans in chili is a crime
>> punishable equal to stealing a horse. Why?
>
> Because your friends like to argue and dominate other people
> with their unfounded opinions on the way the world should be.
>>
>> I make my chili with pinto beans and either chopped/ground beef or ground
>> turkey and my family goes wild when I make it. No matter how big the pot,
>> it's gone in a couple of days.
>
> It's your chile, do what you will. If it tastes good, people are going
> to eat it. If it tastes bad, they won't.
>
> If you're going to drown your meat, fish or fowl in chile sauce, put
> whatever you want in there. Throw that road-killed armadillo in there.
> If you can't get an armadillo, watch for
> squashed possums and raccoons. ;-)
>
> Drown the taste with chile. It's your esophagus that's at risk with
> excess chile sauce.
>
> Chile sauce is supposed to be a *vegetable-based* sauce to be applied
> as lavishly or as sparingly as the individual prefers.
>
> "Enchilada" does not refer to a rolled up tortilla in chile sauce, it
> refers to *anything* in a chile sauce.
>
> It would be as accurate to call "Chili con Carne" by the name
> "Carne de Res Enchilada" or the version with beans "Carne de Res y
> Frijoles Enchiladas".
>
> The meat, fish, or fowl should be cooked as much as possible
> separately, and then finished in the sauce, like the cooks down in
> Oaxaca make their Mole Whatever.
>
> Mole and chili are essentially the same dish. They are both stews.
>
> A cook living in a village deep in Mexico would probably have multiple
> cooking pots to make everything in, while chuckwagon cook on a Texas
> cattle drive might have only one large pot to throw everything into,
> and the beef of an uncastrated animal that was found dead along the
> trail might
> be very gamy, so they would drown the bad taste in excess chile sauce.
>>
>> So what's the deal?
>
> Your friends like to argue and dominate other peoples' opinions
> That's it in a nutshell.
>