Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Mexican Cooking (alt.food.mexican-cooking) A newsgroup created for the discussion and sharing of mexican food and recipes. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
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! |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
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! > > |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
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. |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
> > 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 |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
"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 |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
"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 |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
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... |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
"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. |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
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 |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
"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 > |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
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. |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
"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! |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
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 > > |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
"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. |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
> 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 |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
"Jack Tyler" > wrote in message oups.com... > > > 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 > You mean I'm right? Is this the way you folks do it? |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
On Mar 23, 10:14?am, "Wayne Lundberg" >
wrote: > "The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in ooglegroups.com... > > I am searching for excerpts from the diary of my GG grandfather's > > cousin and images of his artifacts right now. > Looking forward to more on your grandfather's diary. Interesting He was my great great grandfather's cousin of the same surname. On the English side, my family tree includes military leaders, colonial governors, a poet, a banker, an inventor, and an artist who accompanied a famous naturalist up the Missouri River as far as the steamboat would take the party on an expedition to record and popularize as many North American mammals as possible. The expedition's leader was not a landscape painter and he didn't "do" botany either, so that's where my GG grandfather's cousin came in. He painted backgrounds and foliage for his patron who would then brush in the central subject. In his diary, he describes the fur trading fort where they lived for two months, the expert horsemanship of the better riders and their ability to fire their guns from horseback while riding no hands, the firing of cannons to salute arriving boats, a visit to an Indian burial ground, and the general character of some of the outcasts who lived beyond the reach of the law. He returned from North Dakota with a bird named after him. It was the expedition leader's practice to name birds after his friends and travelling companions, so my GG grandfather's cousin appears to be credited with his own bird species, which annoys taxonomists. The party returned to St. Louis by open sailboat. I learned that his diary was donated to the Boston Athenaeum long before e-books were ever conceived of, so it's unlikely that I will ever get to actually read it. His paintings of birds are also in the Athenaeum and it would take a dedicated researcher to figure out whether he painted the whole picture, or if the central subject was actually painted by the famous ornithologist who is generally credited with it. The practice of multiple artists working on one painting is hardly new. The old masters used their students to paint large portions of the works they are credited with. |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
"The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in message oups.com... > On Mar 23, 10:14?am, "Wayne Lundberg" > > wrote: > > "The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in ooglegroups.com... > > > > I am searching for excerpts from the diary of my GG grandfather's > > > cousin and images of his artifacts right now. > > > Looking forward to more on your grandfather's diary. Interesting > > He was my great great grandfather's cousin of the same surname. > > On the English side, my family tree includes military leaders, > colonial governors, a poet, a banker, an inventor, and an artist who > accompanied a famous naturalist up the Missouri River as far as the > steamboat would take the party on an expedition to record and > popularize as many North American mammals as possible. > > The expedition's leader was not a landscape painter and he didn't > "do" botany either, so that's where my GG grandfather's cousin came > in. He painted backgrounds and foliage for his patron who would then > brush in the central subject. > > In his diary, he describes the fur trading fort where they lived for > two months, the expert horsemanship of the better riders and their > ability to fire their guns from horseback while riding no hands, the > firing of cannons to salute arriving boats, a visit to an Indian > burial ground, and the general character of some of the outcasts who > lived beyond the reach of the law. > > He returned from North Dakota with a bird named after him. It was the > expedition leader's practice to name birds after his friends and > travelling companions, so my GG grandfather's cousin appears to be > credited with his own bird species, which annoys taxonomists. > > The party returned to St. Louis by open sailboat. > > I learned that his diary was donated to the Boston Athenaeum long > before > e-books were ever conceived of, so it's unlikely that I will ever get > to actually read it. His paintings of birds are also in the Athenaeum > and it would take a dedicated researcher to figure out whether he > painted the whole picture, or if the central subject was actually > painted by the famous ornithologist who is generally credited with it. > > The practice of multiple artists working on one painting is hardly > new. The old masters used their students to paint large portions of > the works they are credited with. > Interesting. I hope you can find some references to the eating habits or conditions which ruled in those days. I bet jerky and pemmican was among them. But what happens when one gets old and the teeth don't have the strength to chew the jerky? Did they leave the old people on the trail to die? As did the native Americans? Hope you get a chance to find the old records some day. Wayne |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
On Mar 23, 1:24?pm, "Wayne Lundberg" >
wrote: > Interesting. I hope you can find some references to the eating habits or > conditions which ruled in those days. I bet jerky and pemmican was among > them. Jerky: charque, charqui (from the Quechua ch'arki). I suppose the difference between jerky and pemmican, which is made of dried meat and berries, is that the Indians of mesoAmerica had chiles and spices that preserved meats better than just sun drying Native american style. The Plains Indians were not consistently hostile to Europeans. They would trade their furs and beadwork and pemmican with fur trappers who had something they liked. If you want to read a historical novel which deals with the Lakota tribes from their own viewpoint read "Hanta Yo", but be aware that it's going to take you about two weeks to get through it and understand the worldview of those people. The Native American tribes of the plains had hardly been there for more than two or three generations when the Europeans arrived. The Dakotas lived in Minnesota before they moved towards the Missouri River around 1800. Dakota means "Allies", they were a group of clans organized for mutual defense, and everybody knew who was related to whom within their own clan, they married outside the clan to avoid inbreeding. They lived by the Missouri River and traded with the French and the priests tried to convert them to Catholicism. French fur trappers called "woodsrunners" would marry Indian women and produce "metisses" or "half breed" children. The Dakotas would cross the Missouri every summer and wander off across South Dakota towards Devil's Tower and the Montana border. Some became known as "those who stayed on the plains" when they decided not to return to the Missouri every winter. The term was something like "Tetonwinan", and some later became called the "Teton Sioux" because of (1) where they lived, and (2) the other tribes didn't much like them ("sioux" means "cut" in another language") except for the Cheyenne (painted red) people that they got along well with. The Lakotah hated the Crow tribe and were contemptuous of other Lakota tribes who went begging to be admitted to Crow clans just because they were starving. The Lakotah were contemptuous of Crow women who used dirt to kill crab lice in their pubic hairs. The young braves of the tribes of the Great Plains had to prove themselves in combat before they would be accepted as warriors, so they would challenge Europeans who were just passing through. The Europeans didn't understand the ritual nature of the challenge and the limited nature of Native American warfare. The Indians understood that if they exterminated another tribe, they would have difficulty finding women to abduct for wives and it would be hard to steal horses from tribes that were extinct through warfare. One of my great great grandfather's *other* cousins was a famous gunfighter and US marshall, after whom the poker hand of aces and eights is named. He was not called "Wild Bill" until later, that was actually his father's name. "Bill" was ritually challenged by a young Lakota brave who ritually shouted, "I am not afraid of you." The US marshall replied, in Lakota, "And I am not afraid of you." But the youngster continued pestering him and tried to "count coup" on him. Touching an enemy in ritual combat was considered to be an act of bravery. But "Bill" did not see this as ritual combat, he saw it as a deadly assault, so he shot the teenager and killed him. > But what happens when one gets old and the teeth don't have the > strength to chew the jerky? Did they leave the old people on the trail to > die? Plenty of old folks died along the Oregon Trail on the way to a better life, and I can't say for sure that nobody was abandoned. But Americans certainly went to great length to seek assistance. Like some of the party stuck in Death Valley walked 200 miles to Los Angeles to get help. But there was no way across Donner Pass, and no close settlement, the Donner Party was stuck in the snow. > As did the native Americans? Winters were called "The Starving Time" for Plains Indian tribes. They counted their age by the winters they survived. If an old person was related to a chief, that person was more likely to survive more winters. The Lakota who kept a record of the winters remembered one severely cold winter as the time when birds froze in mid-flight and fell out of the sky... You have to understand how "potlatching" worked. Native Americans believed that generousity was its own reward. They would try to outdo each other in giving away horses and furs and whatever they had a surplus of. They knew that the other members of the clan would help out in times of need. If a warrior was killed or died, the women of the tribe would seize all of his possessions and the widow would die alone in the cold if another warrior didn't want her for a wife. If she was old and toothless, she was unlikely to be welcomed into another lodge. |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
On Mar 23, 4:11 pm, "Wayne Lundberg" >
wrote: > "Jack Tyler" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > > > > 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 > > You mean I'm right? Is this the way you folks do it An example: After roasting a turkey, take the turkey out of the roaster and place the roaster on two burners. Put the burners on medium and get the grease and drippings bubbling. At that point, start adding flour while stirring until a light, thick roux is formed. Then start adding milk until you have a thick cream gravy, the consistency that you want. Add pepper to give a nice peppery look to it, then check the seasoning by tasting to see if it needs salt. That's southern cream gravy. Jack |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
On Mar 23, 2:19 pm, "Jack Tyler" > wrote:
> > 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 Hey, Jack, so am I. In fact, tonight we're having the second half of Wednesday's chicken and sausage effort. One time a friend asked me how to make a gumbo. I said, make a dark roux, add the trinity, then look around for something you have that's either already dead or that you can kill and get ready real fast. David |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
On Mar 23, 6:00 pm, "dtwright37" > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2:19 pm, "Jack Tyler" > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > Hey, Jack, so am I. In fact, tonight we're having the second half of > Wednesday's chicken and sausage effort. One time a friend asked me how > to make a gumbo. I said, make a dark roux, add the trinity, then look > around for something you have that's either already dead or that you > can kill and get ready real fast. > > David I just finished up some chicken and sausage gumbo... next week, I plan blue crab, shrimp and oyster gumbo. Jack |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
"The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in message ups.com... > On Mar 23, 1:24?pm, "Wayne Lundberg" > > wrote: > > > Interesting. I hope you can find some references to the eating habits or > > conditions which ruled in those days. I bet jerky and pemmican was among > > them. > > Jerky: charque, charqui (from the Quechua ch'arki). I suppose the > difference > between jerky and pemmican, which is made of dried meat and berries, > is that the Indians of mesoAmerica had chiles and spices that > preserved meats better than just sun drying Native american style. > > The Plains Indians were not consistently hostile to Europeans. They > would trade their furs and beadwork and pemmican with fur trappers who > had something they liked. > > If you want to read a historical novel which deals with the Lakota > tribes from their own viewpoint read "Hanta Yo", but be aware that > it's going to take you about two weeks to get through it and > understand the worldview of those people. > > The Native American tribes of the plains had hardly been there for > more than two or three generations when the Europeans arrived. The > Dakotas lived in Minnesota before they moved towards the Missouri > River around 1800. Dakota means "Allies", they were a group of clans > organized for mutual defense, and everybody knew who was related to > whom within their own clan, they married outside the clan to avoid > inbreeding. > > They lived by the Missouri River and traded with the French and the > priests tried to convert them to Catholicism. French fur trappers > called "woodsrunners" would marry Indian women and produce "metisses" > or "half breed" children. > > The Dakotas would cross the Missouri every summer and wander off > across South Dakota towards Devil's Tower and the Montana border. Some > became known as "those who stayed on the plains" when they decided not > to return to the Missouri every winter. > > The term was something like "Tetonwinan", and some later became called > the "Teton Sioux" because of (1) where they lived, and (2) the other > tribes didn't much like them ("sioux" means "cut" in another > language") except for the Cheyenne (painted red) people that they got > along well with. > > The Lakotah hated the Crow tribe and were contemptuous of other Lakota > tribes who went begging to be admitted to Crow clans just because they > were starving. The Lakotah were contemptuous of Crow women who used > dirt to kill crab lice in their pubic hairs. > > The young braves of the tribes of the Great Plains had to prove > themselves in combat before they would be accepted as warriors, so > they would challenge Europeans who were just passing through. The > Europeans didn't understand the ritual nature of the challenge and the > limited nature of Native American warfare. > > The Indians understood that if they exterminated another tribe, they > would have difficulty finding women to abduct for wives and it would > be hard to steal horses from tribes that were extinct through warfare. > > One of my great great grandfather's *other* cousins was a famous > gunfighter and US marshall, after whom the poker hand of aces and > eights is named. He was not called "Wild Bill" until later, that was > actually his father's name. > > "Bill" was ritually challenged by a young Lakota brave who ritually > shouted, "I am not afraid of you." The US marshall replied, in Lakota, > "And I am not afraid of you." > > But the youngster continued pestering him and tried to "count coup" on > him. > Touching an enemy in ritual combat was considered to be an act of > bravery. > But "Bill" did not see this as ritual combat, he saw it as a deadly > assault, so he shot the teenager and killed him. > > > But what happens when one gets old and the teeth don't have the > > strength to chew the jerky? Did they leave the old people on the trail to > > die? > > Plenty of old folks died along the Oregon Trail on the way to a better > life, and I can't say for sure that nobody was abandoned. But > Americans certainly went to great length to seek assistance. Like some > of the party stuck in Death Valley walked 200 miles to Los Angeles to > get help. But there was no way across Donner Pass, and no close > settlement, the Donner Party was stuck in the snow. > > > As did the native Americans? > > Winters were called "The Starving Time" for Plains Indian tribes. They > counted their age by the winters they survived. If an old person was > related to a chief, that person was more likely to survive more > winters. > > The Lakota who kept a record of the winters remembered one severely > cold winter as the time when birds froze in mid-flight and fell out of > the sky... > > You have to understand how "potlatching" worked. Native Americans > believed that generousity was its own reward. They would try to outdo > each other in giving away horses and furs and whatever they had a > surplus of. > > They knew that the other members of the clan would help out in times > of need. > > If a warrior was killed or died, the women of the tribe would seize > all of his possessions and the widow would die alone in the cold if > another warrior didn't want her for a wife. If she was old and > toothless, she was unlikely to be welcomed into another lodge. > I could read history all day and night long. Right now I'm into Caveman Chemistry which illustrates through story and chemical formulas the evolution from fire to alloys and most everything in between. I even learned how to make an arrow-head with nothing but pieces of wood pressing the flakes until shaped. Kind of like the Clovis and Folsom points. Thanks for the Indian journey into the past. Great reading! |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
In article .com>,
Jack Tyler > wrote: > > [] >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 [] Say Jack, how 'bout posting your recipe for Drunken Beans? Or "Charro" Beans. Regards. > >Regards, > >Jack > > -- Return address invalid due to spam. |
Posted to alt.food.mexican-cooking
|
|||
|
|||
My conclusion on the chili question
"The Galloping Gourmand" > wrote in message ups.com... > On Mar 23, 1:24?pm, "Wayne Lundberg" > > wrote: > >> Interesting. I hope you can find some references to the eating habits or >> conditions which ruled in those days. I bet jerky and pemmican was among >> them. > > Jerky: charque, charqui (from the Quechua ch'arki). I suppose the > difference > between jerky and pemmican, which is made of dried meat and berries, > is that the Indians of mesoAmerica had chiles and spices that > preserved meats better than just sun drying Native american style. > The difference is pemmican is made from the Dried "Jerked" meat, it is a derivative from Jerky. Its name means long journey food. That hard dried bit of jerked meat was crushed or pulverized mixed with rendered fat, nuts and/or dried berries Think of it as the first Bullion cube or instant soup mix. Chiles were probably mixed in to the SW Style but Chiles do not preserve meat. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
conclusion; your All pathetic | General Cooking | |||
A new conclusion | Sourdough | |||
A new conclusion | General Cooking | |||
I can't believe it's not butter.... conclusion | General Cooking | |||
Chili question (Or maybe it should be chile question) | General Cooking |