• 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 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
OccamsToothbrush said:
That is pure and utter bullshit. His existence is well established and universally accepted by anyone that isn't a complete crackpot. It might be possible that his travel stories are just that, stories that he narrated or that others wrote in his voice and it's possible that he never went to China himself. But his family was quite prominent and he had many relatives who indisputably went to Asia. So it's not too far-fetched to believe that his tales are real or at the worst second-person accounts of people he actually knew.
Click to expand...

actually, that isn't true at all. There isn't a single record of anyone that is, or match's Marco Polo in the libraries and records of his so-called hometown, despite extensive records of contemporaries existing in these places. Concurrently, there are exactly zero records within the villages and cities of China that this individual visited, despite the existence of extensive records of that time.

In fact-and yes, this is a fact: there are more records of the existence of Jesus than there are of Marco Polo, as controversial as those may be. There is effectively ZERO real historical evidence that Marco Polo existed. Zero. This, based on a pretty interesting documentary I saw with several Marco Polo/Italian historians that have basically spent their lives investigating the actual history of this man.

What is abundantly true, however, is that in that time, these travel books were exceedingly popular. They were always narrated by named, fictional travelers, as if these were real people. As I understand it, and I could possibly be wrong about this--it was commonly understood that these were just narrators, or muses. They weren't accepted to be true individuals. I believe the myth of Marco Polo being a real person started some generation(s) after his travel log appeared.

Not sure if you're referring to the silly, fictional Starz show about Marco Polo, but I don't think there was a real family, either.

This page mentions some of the issues regarding Marco Polo, and supports the fact that there isn't a single historical record anywhere that supports his existence:

hammeringshield.wordpress.com

So Did Marco Polo Really Exist?

Certain personages in history tie-in together more than one Period or Civilization, and so prove useful “landmarks,” so to speak, when one attempts to wrap one’s head around somet…
hammeringshield.wordpress.com hammeringshield.wordpress.com

...but the author goes on to confirm that they "believe he existed," with the implied caveat that they basically just want to believe it. The China stuff being interesting, in that many of the details that would likely be included by such a traveler to the real "orient" of the day, are missing from Marco Polo's account, which really is quite strange.
 
Last edited:
zinfamous said:
actually, that isn't true at all. There isn't a single record of anyone that is, or match's Marco Polo in the libraries and records of his so-called hometown, despite extensive records of contemporaries existing in these places. Concurrently, there are exactly zero records within the villages and cities of China that this individual visited, despite the existence of extensive records of that time.

In fact-and yes, this is a fact: there are more records of the existence of Jesus than there are of Marco Polo, as controversial as those may be. There is effectively ZERO real historical evidence that Marco Polo existed. Zero. This, based on a pretty interesting documentary I saw with several Marco Polo/Italian historians that have basically spent their lives investigating the actual history of this man.

What is abundantly true, however, is that in that time, these travel books were exceedingly popular. They were always narrated by named, fictional travelers, as if these were real people. As I understand it, and I could possibly be wrong about this--it was commonly understood that these were just narrators, or muses. They weren't accepted to be true individuals. I believe the myth of Marco Polo being a real person started some generation(s) after his travel log appeared.

Not sure if you're referring to the silly, fictional Starz show about Marco Polo, but I don't think there was a real family, either.

This page mentions some of the issues regarding Marco Polo, and supports the fact that there isn't a single historical record anywhere that supports his existence:

hammeringshield.wordpress.com

So Did Marco Polo Really Exist?

Certain personages in history tie-in together more than one Period or Civilization, and so prove useful “landmarks,” so to speak, when one attempts to wrap one’s head around somet…
hammeringshield.wordpress.com hammeringshield.wordpress.com

...but the author goes on to confirm that they "believe he existed," with the implied caveat that they basically just want to believe it. The China stuff being interesting, in that many of the details that would likely be included by such a traveler to the real "orient" of the day, are missing from Marco Polo's account, which really is quite strange.
Click to expand...
@zinfamous I more likely to accept the Wikipedia Entry as being true then some random dude's opinion on a blog post. So yes, Marco Polo was real living person. So There!!!
 
Hmm? Your citation does talk about how there's no evidence from China that he ever visited there. It doesn't say that there's no evidence that he existed at all. He and his family (Niccolo, Maffeo, etc) are fairly well attested to.
 
ewdotson said:
Hmm? Your citation does talk about how there's no evidence from China that he ever visited there. It doesn't say that there's no evidence that he existed at all. He and his family (Niccolo, Maffeo, etc) are fairly well attested to.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is the same doc I watched some years ago that has me rather convinced:

www.smithsonianchannel.com

Smithsonian Channel: It's Brighter Here

Smithsonian Channel offers documentaries and shows exploring history, science, nature, aviation, space and pop culture. Discover your favorite shows now.
www.smithsonianchannel.com www.smithsonianchannel.com

but it might be. What I can say is that I found the undisputed lack of any historical record of Marco Polo, anywhere, to be rather compelling. It surprised me, for sure. I submit, of course, that it does seem to be a small contingent of people that hold on to this argument that there never was such a person, and I'm not one to simply believe the argument of the few over the many, but the evidence (rather, lack thereof) is rather compelling. I'm more than willing to have my preconceptions about nearly anything to be updated with new evidence, but it has to be substantial. This was one of those very rare moments for me.

As a counter, I'm not one of those ignorant nutjobs that believes, with no mote of evidence, that somehow Shakespeare never existed, or that he is not the true (or simply single) author of all of his attributed work. Those people are idiots.
 
whm1974 said:
@zinfamous I more likely to accept the Wikipedia Entry as being true then some random dude's opinion on a blog post. So yes, Marco Polo was real living person. So There!!!
Click to expand...

You're a guy that thinks chili can't be chili if it doesn't have beans, or if it's just meat.

no one is really interested in what you think, tbh. 😀
 
zinfamous said:
I'm not sure if this is the same doc I watched some years ago that has me rather convinced:

www.smithsonianchannel.com

Smithsonian Channel: It's Brighter Here

Smithsonian Channel offers documentaries and shows exploring history, science, nature, aviation, space and pop culture. Discover your favorite shows now.
www.smithsonianchannel.com www.smithsonianchannel.com

but it might be. What I can say is that I found the undisputed lack of any historical record of Marco Polo, anywhere, to be rather compelling. It surprised me, for sure. I submit, of course, that it does seem to be a small contingent of people that hold on to this argument that there never was such a person, and I'm not one to simply believe the argument of the few over the many, but the evidence (rather, lack thereof) is rather compelling. I'm more than willing to have my preconceptions about nearly anything to be updated with new evidence, but it has to be substantial. This was one of those very rare moments for me.

As a counter, I'm not one of those ignorant nutjobs that believes, with no mote of evidence, that somehow Shakespeare never existed, or that he is not the true (or simply single) author of all of his attributed work. Those people are idiots.
Click to expand...
But … I don't think it's true that there's an undisputed lack of any historical record of Marco Polo. I know, I know, Wikipedia, but I don't have time right now to dig up better cites, and:

In 1305 he is mentioned in a Venetian document among local sea captains regarding the payment of taxes.[24] His relation with a certain Marco Polo, who in 1300 was mentioned with riots against the aristocratic government, and escaped the death penalty, as well as riots from 1310 led by Bajamonte Tiepolo and Marco Querini, among whose rebels were Jacobello and Francesco Polo from another family branch, is unclear.[24] Polo is clearly mentioned again after 1305 in Maffeo's testament from 1309–1310, in a 1319 document according to which he became owner of some estates of his deceased father, and in 1321, when he bought part of the family property of his wife Donata.[24]
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Marco Polo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Did you guys know that every single container of Old Bay contains some percentage (basically very small, like molecular) of the very first batch of Old Bay ever made?

Each batch of the stuff is made from the crushed and ground remnants of crab boils (so, basically the remaining crab shells) that were seasoned with Old Bay during the boil. So, tracing it all the way back the way we do with mitochondrial DNA (your mother...so therefore all modern humans share the same lineage with the same, individual woman---OK, same with the Y chromsome and all existing males. Note: this does not mean that the mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam were concurrent individuals), every container of old Bay owes it's origins to the very first batch.
 
zinfamous said:
You're a guy that thinks chili can't be chili if it doesn't have beans, or if it's just meat.

no one is really interested in what you think, tbh. 😀
Click to expand...
However I'm right. a Meat stew with Chili peppers also has to have other ingredients in order to be consider a stew. Otherwise it is just a favorable meat sauce. 🙄
From dictionary.com
noun
a preparation of meat, fish, or other food cooked by stewing, especially a mixture of meat and vegetables.
Informal. a state of agitation, uneasiness, or worry.
Click to expand...
 
whm1974 said:
However I'm right. a Meat stew with Chili peppers also has to have other ingredients in order to be consider a stew. Otherwise it is just a favorable meat sauce. 🙄
From dictionary.com
Click to expand...
From dictionary.com

CHILI Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

CHILI definition: Sometimes chile a hearty stew that is also used as a topping condiment on other dishes and has varied recipes and ingredients, with or without meat, ultimately derived from the Mexican-style chili con carne. See examples of chili used in a sentence.
www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com
Also called chili pepper. the pungent pod of any of several species of Capsicum, especially C. annuum longum: used in cooking for its pungent flavor.
chili con carne.
a meatless version of chili con carne.
Click to expand...

CHILI CON CARNE Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

CHILI CON CARNE definition: a Mexican-style dish made with chile peppers or chili powder, cubed or ground beef, chopped onion and pepper, and often kidney beans and tomatoes. See examples of chili con carne used in a sentence.
www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com
a Mexican-style dish made with chilies or chili powder, ground or diced beef, chopped onion and pepper, and usually kidney beans and tomatoes.
Click to expand...
 
say what ?? This is a chili thread!
Who cares about Marco Polo?
I heard Marco Polo invented egg foo yung!
Chili verde (green chili) is a moderately to extremely spicy New Mexican cuisine stew or sauce usually made from chunks of pork that have been slow-cooked in chicken broth, garlic, tomatillos, and roasted green chilis. Tomatoes are rarely used.
 
whm1974 said:
However I'm right. a Meat stew with Chili peppers also has to have other ingredients in order to be consider a stew. Otherwise it is just a favorable meat sauce. 🙄
From dictionary.com
Click to expand...
My dinner tonight will be DIY stew with beef, kabocha squash, broccoli, cauliflower, purple tree collards, celery, sweet potato, cabbage, split peas, barley, chicken stock, black pepper.

I have made chili verde, also chili colorado.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top