I'm not anti-bean. I'll even a bowl of pinto beans all by themselves
or as a side item with barbecue. (By the way, there is no "Q" in real
Texas barbecue.) But chili contains no beans, and I believe in "truth
in advertising." Now, I've got nothing against folks who ADD beans to
their chili.

The main reason people have always added beans to a pot of chili is
simply to stretch it. Its like adding water to soup, or rice to gumbo,
when unexpected company shows up. In the old days, many poor Mexicans
could not afford a lot of meat. What they could afford was a small
amount of tough, stringy beef that required a lot of stewing. If you
had a big family to feed, you simply dumped a lot of beans in it to
increase the volume. This gave rise to the derogatory term "beaners"
in reference to those who typically added beans to their chili.

Keeping the beans out of your chili has always represented a "refusal
to compromise" the quality of the food you put on your table. But, for
those who grew up "dirt poor," and acquired a taste for beans in their
chili, if you've ADDED beans to your chili, then you should not tell
everyone you are serving "chili," but rather that you are serving
delicious bowls of "chili and beans."

(If you're from Oklahoma or Arkansas, you simply may not know any
better. You're forgiven.)

I'm a Texan transplanted to México where Texas style chili is
unknown. My experience with that grand culinary delight is that good
chili doesn't need or want beans. On the other hand, poor quality
chili may be saved, or at least improved, by beans.

I just got back from 4 days in Texas visiting with my sister. Before
I arrived I told her I wanted a big pot of real chili. The bitch made
minestrone soup. But she did make cornbread, black-eye peas, and
butter beans with ham hock. I also had pickled peaches, grilled pork
loin, and real iced tea. All things I don't get in México.

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:27:47 -0700 (PDT), Rolly
> wrote:

>I'm a Texan transplanted to México where Texas style chili is
>unknown. My experience with that grand culinary delight is that good
>chili doesn't need or want beans. On the other hand, poor quality
>chili may be saved, or at least improved, by beans.
>
>I just got back from 4 days in Texas visiting with my sister. Before
>I arrived I told her I wanted a big pot of real chili. The bitch made
>minestrone soup. But she did make cornbread, black-eye peas, and
>butter beans with ham hock. I also had pickled peaches, grilled pork
>loin, and real iced tea. All things I don't get in México.

Sounds like something I would get from my relatives that live a bit
south of me in Georgia more than something I would expect in Texas.
Now chili fits what I think of from Texas, but the rest is typical
southern fair that is quite common in Georgia, Alabama and South
Carolina.