RE: [CH] Texas chili
dan combs (dcombs@bloomington.in.us)
Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:05:31 -0400
At 06:30 PM 9/15/2007, Riley J. McIntire wrote:
>dan combs [dcombs@bloomington.in.us] spake thusly on Saturday, September 15,
>2007 2:28 PM:
>
> > At 03:54 PM 9/14/2007, =Mark wrote:
>
>Seems to me chili has to have chiles in it. I'm no expert, but that sounds
>like de-chilefied chili for early to mid-1900s midwest palettes. Tell the
>truth, it was cooked with beans, but my Mom's ``chili'' was like that and
>she was from Missouri. But I'm from LA and not related. ;-)
Please don't misunderstand what I said in my recollections: The
chile heat came/comes in the toppings. You could use "chili powder"
in place of the cumin, or a few chiles themselves in with the
cumin. But the chili meat of bygone times probably had a simple
recipe. and if the cook added anchos or chipotles or cayenne
powder or chile powder I'd bet it was a minimal adjustment while
cooking and the real seasoning was left for after a plate was
drawn. That way the heat-seasoning could be adjusted to the
palates. Also, just to be clear, the beans are a separate dish that
the meat is added to. So "chili" to me has always been a
self-regulated and administered heat where the heat and beans are not
central to the chili flavor but are to the meal. I would find it hard
to believe that complex seasonings and ingredients and heat were the
object of the original "chili."
My guess is if we were to somehow run the history of the dish it
would have very little chiles in the original form. Cumin is
considered by many to be "hot" and cumin has been around in bulk for
a long time. Cumin also adds a lot of flavor which chiles in the
same weight by themselves would not do when cooked for a long
period. Flavor of chiles would just sort of moosh out over the
fire. The heat would stay, but again but I doubt the original meal
had much to do with heat. Beans, a bit of meat and a cornbread or
tortilla would essentially be a survival diet fit for desert living,
living in poverty or near, or a filling meal for rides on the
trail. Well, with meat it would mean someone had some money, but I'm
not aware of _any_ chili that does not have cumin in it. Even
commercial "chili" powders that would have been available at the time
and are available now are more cumin and garlic than chile.
Also, to claim it has to do with the bland US palate seems a vast
oversimplification. Trail teams and chuckwagons would be limited in
what they carried, as would the ordinary dirt-poor Texan household of
yore. Gram for gram cumin will add far more "flavor" that is
detectable by the normal eater than would chiles. Chile is a subtle
flavor, cumin is not. What did the cowhands eat? That probably was
"chili" and I can't imagine how "chiles" became the object of "chili."
So yes, it is my contention that people who claim lots of spices and
chiles make a "chili" are too far removed from the original purpose
of the meal itself to be realistic in their modern recipes. Far
more likely is a standard recipe of few ingredients and spices that
allows for adding whatever is available at the time as toppings or
additions for more flavor and heat..
>Hmmm, 'cept for the chiles I'd call that a Kansas City taco.
Maybe that's a later incarnation. Historic tacos are a specific
common-ingredient recipe also, that has been changed immensely over
the last 30-40 years by commercialization of Mexican and Tex-Mex
dishes. There is little lettuce and cheese to be found without
refrigeration in the Sonoran Desert, but there is beans, rice and
seasoned salt-meat.
> > For the high-brow eater, a dollop of sour cream might go well on
> > top though.
>
>Really, use a corn tortilla instead of corn bread...
Okay. But the common denominator is corn. Bread has a leavener
and tortillas don't. I was raised just a bit further north and with
a slightly better income than dirt-poor, so we could afford the
leavenings. Other than that the Texas Chili I grew up with seems
faithful to the few ingredients available back in the day: Corn,
beans, maybe a low-cost meat and a couple of basic spices. All of
that other stuff to me is citified glory, added to impress
people. Where I come from things are not complicated. Even
something like "pasta" was considered high-brow, an intellectualizing
of macaroni.
But all of our mileage may vary.
> > How did this simple treat get so complicated?
>
>Ask a simple question around here and that's what you get. For that matter,
>no one's answered the question whether Jardine's Bag o'Fixins Kit is any
>good. Not that it matters any more, I'll make it from scratch. :-/
Never heard of Jardine's Bag. Pre-prepared spice mixes are ruining
the world. How are children supposed to learn how to cook?
carp