• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rant Yes, Chili does has beans.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DigDog said:
uh oh, that looks like a Thor-sized banhammer.

also #chilhasbeans
without any need to open a single history book, if you think prehistoric people could aford the luxury of eating a meat dish without adding some carbs to it, you don't really have an argument.
Tex chili =/= Mex chili.
And also, im ok if Texans want to name their own no-beans meat dish Chili, as long as they recognize that it derives from the original, with-beans Mexican recipe.
Click to expand...
This is like claiming paella and jambalaya are the same thing.
 
Chili is an American dish and regional as hell. If you're from Texas, no beans period. Everywhere else has beans. The beans are as regional as the chili. It's all good and all American.
 
DigDog said:
im not super smart, but i suspect that the issue here stems from Texans wanting to call their food CHILI, having taken the recipe from a mexican dish called CHILI.
Click to expand...
there's no attestation to a mexican dish named chili (because in mexico, chili is just spicy peppers). this is completely false. the first historical attestations to a dish named 'chili' are to meat and hot peppers. when beans start getting mentioned it's to plates of 'chili and beans' served with sleeves of crackers or stacks of tortillas. if beans were integral to the dish you wouldn't say 'chili and beans,' you'd just say 'chili.'
 
ElFenix said:
there's no attestation to a mexican dish named chili (because in mexico, chili is just spicy peppers). this is completely false. the first historical attestations to a dish named 'chili' are to meat and hot peppers. when beans start getting mentioned it's to plates of 'chili and beans' served with sleeves of crackers or stacks of tortillas. if beans were integral to the dish you wouldn't say 'chili and beans,' you'd just say 'chili.'
Click to expand...

Fake news!
 
funny enough, chili dates back to the 1850s. before then, the indigenous population of central america had never thought to combine, in a single dish, two of the most commonly cultivated plants in the area since prehistoric times.
 
Tofu is the epitome of white privilege . . . or an obscure Korean martial arts regimen, I forget which. But I do know that I fear it with every (lack of) fiber in my diet. First they brought us Kale, and I said nothing . . .
 
snoopy7548 said:
To be fair, they are pretty much the same thing. 😛 Take your jambalaya, substitute tofu in place of pepperoni, and bam, you got your paella.
Click to expand...
Isn`t that against the geneva Convention??? Would it fall under a war crim or a crime against humanity???
 
The only thing that Chili absolutely must have is chili peppers. Otherwise it is soup or stew, etc. not chili.

I put beans in (most) of mine because they pair well, because it needs some carbs, low fat and high fiber complex carbs are a good and inexpensive way to go.

Boiling meat? Yes and no. IMO, meat should be cooked another way not put in the chili raw but that's about it. Plenty of "meat" is simmered for a while in the soup/stew/chili/etc, it gets some of the flavor and fat out of it into the liquid which improves it greatly, yet pre-cooking it another way first allows you to drain off or otherwise remove some of the excess fat.
 
I always add my meat after the fact!1 Then I let it sit for about a day or so to allow the flavors to seep into the meat!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top