RE: [CH] Texas chili
dan combs (dcombs@bloomington.in.us)
Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:17:20 -0400
At 03:38 PM 9/16/2007, =Mark wrote:
>Chile con Carne *means* Chiles with meat. How can you make the chiles
>optional? That would be like saying a cheeseburger can be served with or
>without cheese.
It's simple: Chile con Carne isn't Texas Chili. My posit is that
the Texas Chili of yore, and my youth, historically is an entirely
different animal and evolved alongside the urban dish of con
carne. You could add chiles into the meat 2ith Texas Chili , and
maybe a bit of dried chile, which is what is in "Chili Powder," but
the more important goal was getting a meal out of beans, a corn bread
of some sort, and salted meat. I guess what I'm saying is maybe
beans and cornbread and Texas Chili are related by economics and the
name "Texas Chili" reflects a Poor Mans version of con carne.
Why else would cumin be the prime spice in "chili powder?"
carp
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:05:31 -0400, dan combs wrote
> > 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
>
> --
> =Mark
>
> http://www.exit109.com/~mstevens