/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.6563773]

Almost broke up a friend's marriage tonight.

I've got a group of about 8-10 friends (a few couples, dating or married) and some singles like me have an occasional pot luck dinner.

Tonight I brought homemade chili (I'm a pretty damn good cook). Now proper chili DOES NOT have beans in it.

I REPEAT, CHILI DOESN'T HAVE BEANS IN IT. When you add beans, it becomes a stew.

My best friend agreed with me, his wife didn't. During the "disagreement", it came out that my friend basically hates his wife's cooking (she really can't cook for shit), and he's been lying about liking her cooking for about 5 years.

We could still hear them yelling at each other across the parking lot as they were heading to their car.

TL:DR Proper chili doesn't have beans. Stew has beans. What do you think?

[Anonymous No.6563777]

>>6563773
your friend's wife is right

[Anonymous No.6563780]

>>6563773
I disagree but it doesn't matter. It will never matter.

[Anonymous No.6563782]

>>6563777
trips confirm

[Anonymous No.6563784]

>>6563773
Why would chilli by just meat and sauce if it's called chill con carne? Or chilli WITH meat.

[Anonymous No.6563785]

This is a myth perpetuated by chili cook offs. It is perfectly acceptable to mix beans and chili, AFTER they've been cooked. The traditional prohibition is against cooking them together.

[Anonymous No.6563789]

>>6563773

[Anonymous No.6563799]

What goes best with chilli, corn or celery?

[Anonymous No.6563803]

Chili with beans is like Irish stew with something else than mutton, onion, potato and water

[Anonymous No.6563809]

>>6563777
>>6563780
>finally a definitive source

but really though, beans are fine in chili

[Anonymous No.6563811]

>>6563799
cornbread

[Anonymous No.6563814]

>I am not on THE SPECTRUM.
>I REPEAT, I AM NOT ON THE SPECTRUM.

[Anonymous No.6563820]

lmao you people are autistic, I don't care if it's a chili or stew according to your obscure pedantry; it's superior with beans.

[Anonymous No.6563828]

>>6563773
>he ruined a marriage before they even had their honeymoon with his chili

When will chilifags just go, nobody likes your spicy meat slosh

[Anonymous No.6563832]

>>6563799
I put beans and mashed up fritos in mine last night.

[Anonymous No.6563834]

>>6563820

I like chili with beans even if I'm using the chili as a topping for hot dogs, nachos, or Cincinnati-style spaghetti.

Spaghetti with beans is actually one of my favorites.

[EuroPoor No.6563855]

>>6563773
>No beans in chili?

OK, so a chili is just a spicier Bolognese sauce?

[Anonymous No.6563859]

>>6563773
The origin of chili seems to be German cowboys making goulash with Mexican hot peppers, so there were no beans in the original form of the dish. Germans aren't so big on beans.

But Mexicans are, and as those German cowboys took Mexican wives beans found their way into the dish.

Same thing happened to pizza. Once it got out of the hands of Italian-Americans shit like bacon and pineapple found their way on top of it. By the time it got to California it became a vehicle for chicken and fucking BBQ sauce.

Good dishes inspire purism, because people who love those dishes don't like to see them fucked with. But this is America, and when it comes to food we'll fuck with anything. We'll put three kinds of beans in your chili and cheese in the fucking crust of your pizza.

Don't like it? No one gives a shit.

[Anonymous No.6563866]

>>6563785
That actually makes a lot of sense.

[Anonymous No.6563871]

>>6563773

proper chili doesn't haver hamburger or tomatoes in it either, so kindly fuck right off with your tomato-beef spicy soup, jerko

[Anonymous No.6563878]

>>6563855
It's what I always wondered too. That's why I put beans and other stuff in my chili.

[Anonymous No.6563879]

>>6563799
Green peas.

[Anonymous No.6563881]

>>6563859
I know this is off topic, but whatever.

I live in California. I know BBQ chicken pizza exists, but I've never had it. Nobody has ever mentioned it. I've never seen anybody order it.
Also, bacon and pineapple are excellent pizza toppings. You can stick to plebberoni and cheese.

[Anonymous No.6563883]

>>6563871
So.... it's just watered down peppers?

[Anonymous No.6563889]

>>6563881
>You can stick to plebberoni
yuck. margherita or bust, and only in a wood fired oven.

[Anonymous No.6563893]

to be fair, if she's going to be a housewife and she can't even cook why bother marrying her?

[Anonymous No.6563895]

>>6563883

>lean beef and bones
>or pork in a pinch
>chilis dried, smoked and/or fresh
I like pasilla, anchos, hatch green and fresh habaneros but many will disagree with the habanero and prefer cayenne
>simmered with spices and herbs until done

chili. best you'll ever taste.

[Anonymous No.6563896]

It's not a pizza if it's infundibuliform, you fucking faggots.

[Anonymous No.6563915]

>implying chili didn't start as cheap food made by spics in Texas
>implying spics making cheap food wouldn't extend chili with beans

[Anonymous No.6563939]

>>6563915

http://www.chilicookoff.com/Recipe/Recipe_WCCC_Recipes.asp?Cat=1

no chili recipes have included beans since the winning of time

[Anonymous No.6563948]

>>6563773
Texan here

Personally I prefer my chili with beans

[Anonymous No.6563950]

>>6563773
>When you add beans, it becomes a stew.

Are you trying to say that chili is not a subset of stews? Because if so, you're retarded. Chili is a stewed dish based on chili peppers. You can argue all day about whether or not it ought to include beans but there's no denying it's a dish prepared in the manner of a stew.

[Anonymous No.6563956]

>>6563773
I firmly believe chili should not have beans.

That said, I sometimes add a can of pinto beans.

Come at me, bro!

[Anonymous No.6563959]

>>6563773
Only autists argue about this type of shit.
Chili is chili...who gives a fuck if someone adds beans or carrots or corn or whatever the fuck else

[Anonymous No.6563960]

>>6563780
>It will never matter.
This. Why does it make any difference to you if I like to add beans to my chili and still call it chili? It's delicious and it makes for a more filling meal. As for the
>When you add beans, it becomes a stew.
comment, like >>6563950
said, it's already a stew regardless.

[Anonymous No.6563977]

>>6563773
Are you saying that all stew has beans in it?

Because it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6564182]

>>6563773
Proper chili made with mincemeat has beans in it. Your friend is very sweet for pretending he doesn't like his wife's cooking but should have let on little by little in a positive maner that he'd like things a bit different.

[Anonymous No.6564187]

>>6564182
>mincemeat
nice try.

[Anonymous No.6564190]

>>6563855

you don't put tomatoes in a chili neither nigga

[Anonymous No.6564254]

>>6563773
You're a fucking dick.

[Anonymous No.6564281]

>>6563828
remove chili

[Anonymous No.6564300]

how do you make a proper autistic authentic chili?

no beans, no tomatoes, no bell peppers, no ground beef

diced beef, chili peppers, and what else?

[Anonymous No.6564306]

>>6563773
kill your friend and then yourself

[Anonymous No.6564323]

>>6563773
So much fuss over such an over rated dish. It takes almost no technique to make.

If you like beans, then beans. If not, no beans. I know a guy who puts in a can of Bushes baked beans along with the kidney beans. He won the chilli cook-off in town here last year.

[Anonymous No.6564385]

>>6563859

You realize tomatoes are american, right? "Pure" Italian cooking would not involve them, and tomato sauce on pizza crust or pasta are purely americanized dishes from the beginning

[Anonymous No.6564394]

Who the fuck honestly cares? Seriously, when you say Chili people know what the fuck you are talking about. If you genuinely care whether or not the vernacular should change based on something completely insignificant. You should honestly kill yourself, because you're fucking worthless.

[Anonymous No.6564434]

>>6564300
Salt

[Anonymous No.6564444]

>>6563773
Well then chili is fucking terrible and "chili stew" with beans is delicious and flavourful.

[Anonymous No.6564452]

Holy shit, why is this even a thing? Some styles of chili have beans, and some don't. Just like some sandwiches have meat and some don't. Why does everyone fly into an autistic rage over this shit?

[Anonymous No.6564460]

Beans is a matter of preference. Texas is generally anti-beans; New Mexico is generally pro-beans.

[Anonymous No.6564613]

>>6564323

you must live in a shit flyover town

[Anonymous No.6564675]

Chili is a stew dummy, one that often has beans.

>a part of texas is the only place people think chili can't have beans
>everywhere else almost always uses beans

Yeah, these no beans in chili threads are pretty clearly just europoors trying to troll.

[Anonymous No.6564686]

>>6563773
does it really matter?

[Anonymous No.6564689]

[Anonymous No.6564691]

[Anonymous No.6564692]

>>6563879

tyler that is a horrible idea and you know it

[Anonymous No.6564694]

[Anonymous No.6564697]

>>6564385
>You realize tomatoes are american, right? "Pure" Italian cooking would not involve them, and tomato sauce on pizza crust or pasta are purely americanized dishes from the beginning
Columbian exchange does not count.

Authentic does not mean Shit if you don't specify the time period and/or Region you want to conform to. (Also how far/specific you are willing to go for Authenticity is often left unspoken.)

Chili originated in North America and had lots of meat due to poor refrigeration.

[Anonymous No.6564701]

[Anonymous No.6564704]

[Anonymous No.6564705]

Chili with no beans is Bolognese

[Anonymous No.6564707]

>>6564300
Diced beef, chili peppers, and dirt you fucking lunatics.

[Anonymous No.6564714]

>>6564705
I usually have more paprika than cumin in my bolognese, and no chilli at all.

[Anonymous No.6564763]

>>6564714
>bolognese
>paprika

[Anonymous No.6564786]

>>6564323
No fuck - meat. I live on the west coast and I don't live in California either.

>flyover

And fuck off with that idiotic super forced meme. Be creative in your posts or stay fucking silent. Fucking baby.

[Anonymous No.6564788]

>>6563773
irishstewguy did you make new friends?

[Anonymous No.6564795]

Chili IS a stew, beans or not.

[Anonymous No.6564893]

>>6564675
I only know Chili con carne with beans here in Germany.
No clue where the no beans allowed myth comes from.

[Anonymous No.6564899]

>>6564795
logic is useless here

>>6564788
also this

[Anonymous No.6564914]

>>6563895
>spicy beef water
no thanks mane, chili purists are like the black metal fans of the culinary world. "Muh trve recipe" is all that matters even though changing things can result in much more interesting and tasty food.

[Anonymous No.6565000]

>>6564914
"can" being the operative word there. Just because you "can" do something doesn't mean you should. Changing things can also result in pure shit as well.

[Anonymous No.6565355]

>>6563859
There was never anything inauthentic about putting anything at all on a pizza. It was designed to have whatever you have dumped on it. It's just a way of using up ingredients that are about to go off.

[Anonymous No.6565360]

>>6563773
>TL:DR Proper chili doesn't have beans. Stew has beans. What do you think?

Either way it's chili. Chili is stew with or without beans. This is a fucking dumb thread. I love you OP.

[Anonymous No.6565376]

Chili without beans as a textural counterpart is disappointing slop. Enjoy your objectively inferior dish, you slop-guzzling swine.

[Anonymous No.6565379]

>>6563773
So basically what you're saying is chili is boring shit, and if you feel like making chili you should make a stew instead. OK.

[Anonymous No.6565680]

>>6564914

it's not watery in the slightest, mister bater. I'll male some next time round goes on sale. you'll see real chili for the first time in your life and you'll plotz

>I gaurantee it

[Anonymous No.6565702]

Chili con carne is what amerifags think they are saying when they say chili.

its literally peppers with meat for you idiots who don't know spanish

[Anonymous No.6565757]

>>6565702
>for you idiots who don't know spanish
>thinks chili is Spanish for "pepper"

[Anonymous No.6565899]

>>6565757
>chili
Is a variation of the word 'chile', which IS a kind of pepper

[Anonymous No.6565906]

>ctrl+f "irish stew"
>2 results

sad

[Anonymous No.6565976]

>>6563799
>>6563811
Jalapeno corn bread, extra sweet.
>>6563773
I apologize in advance because whatever you want to call it, when you serve it to me, I will cover it in a thick layer of black pepper and give it a stir before eating it.

[Anonymous No.6566190]

Chili without beans is spaghetti sauce.

[Anonymous No.6566210]

>>6564701
>recipe ideas on reverse!

What could that possibly be.

[Anonymous No.6566214]

>>6563803
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.6566228]

>>6564788
>ctrl+f
>irish stew guy
>my nigga results

[Anonymous No.6566229]

Proper chili has beans.

[Anonymous No.6566261]

>>6564190
>water
>meat
>powdered spices
S L O P P Y J O E S
L
O
P
P
Y

J
O
E
S

[Anonymous No.6566281]

>>6564914
You say this despite having not even known what that anon was even referring to before that post. If you've never eaten it then how can you know that it is worse than what you were eating before?

I don't think there's really much wrong with beans, but those who are insistent on them tend to be so because what they are making and calling chili really is 'spicy bolognese', with ground meat and half a shake of chili powder, and they NEED beans to differentiate their dish from bolognese.

[Anonymous No.6566285]

I think that chili should have beans in it, but that's my opinion.

If your marrage is on the rocks because of something like that, you were doomed to fail anyway.
TELL HER IF HER COOKING SUCKS BEFORE YOU TIE THE KNOT
BE HONEST AT FIRST, IT WILL BE HELPFUL A LONG TIME DOWN THE ROAD.

[Anonymous No.6566308]

>>6566281
This guy here, the more I think about it the more I think this is the answer. Good chili is good with or without beans. Bad chili needs beans to prove its identity as chili. On one side you have the Irish Stew Guy-like autists who get obsessive over muh authenticity. On the other side you have people who make shit chili who claim beans are an integral part of the dish "because otherwise it's just spicy bolognese". Both are irritating and stupid.

[Anonymous No.6566310]

>>6563773
Proper chilli has beans.

but fuck proper chilli

[Anonymous No.6566456]

ITT: People who don't know their history.

Chili con carne was originally a brick of dried beef and chillies ground together with suet. This could be rehydrated by texan cowboys on the trail to make a stew. It was the pemmican of the southwest.

[Anonymous No.6566570]

>no beans in my chilli good sir

[Anonymous No.6566600]

>>6563785
What do you mean by this? You're talking about canned beans, right?

Of all the autism I've seen about chili on here, I've never seen a good recipe. I don't care if it has beans or not, I just want it to taste good. Can someone share a recipe for "authentic" chili without beans?

straight from Google
>mid 19th century: from Spanish chile con carne, literally ‘chili pepper with meat.’

[Anonymous No.6566603]

I substitute the beans with tuna sometimes

[Anonymous No.6566604]

>>6566600
If you've tried as many recipes as you seem to be suggesting, it's possible you're a terrible cook, or you just don't like chilli.

[Anonymous No.6566729]

>>6564795
That isn't important to the topic.

[Anonymous No.6566775]

>>6566600

http://www.homesicktexan.com/2009/02/more-precise-texas-chili-recipe.html?m=1

[Anonymous No.6566778]

Imma post this in every chili thread I find.

[Anonymous No.6566991]

>>6566778
doesn't appear to be that good tbh

[Anonymous No.6567009]

>>6563773

Fuck you and your meat stew. Chili has beans.

[Anonymous No.6567057]

>>6566991
It's one of the worst recipes for chili that I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.6567058]

I made chili con carne yesterday. It was really good. Tasted like I always remembered chili. It also had jus tthe right amount of kidney beans. I had it in a baked potato with grated cheddar and some mixed salad.

[Anonymous No.6567068]

>>6567057
except for the fact that it's delicious

[Anonymous No.6567069]

beans are for retards and mexicans

[Anonymous No.6567081]

>>6566778
Are you filipino?

[Anonymous No.6567084]

>>6566778
this is one of the worst recipes I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.6567085]

>>6567081
why the fuck would he be filipino?

[Anonymous No.6567101]

>>6566778
Did you have to give someone a keg & 1,000 fist-bumps before they gave you this recipe?

[Anonymous No.6567104]

>>6566778
This looks so gross. Why wouldn't he even cut the stems off the little green peps?

[Anonymous No.6567126]

>>6567085
Because filipinos always fuck with food until it's just a bare resemblance of the original recipe.

[Anonymous No.6567130]

>>6567126
filipinos fuck with everything
literally

[Anonymous No.6567177]

>>6566778
I try not to hate, but what even the flying fuck.
>unseeded hot peppers
>pickled peppers
>that terrible cutting work
>beer AND whiskey AND vinegar
>served on rice

There's flavoring, and then there's everyfuckingthing in the kitchen. You're just crowding your palate with retardation at this point.

[Anonymous No.6567240]

>>6563960
Because fedoracore assholes think their purity is the only thing of what a chili is and not realizing that chili was made out of what you can throw in the pot and cook for hours

[Anonymous No.6567259]

>>6567240
>chili was made out of what you can throw in the pot and cook for hours

I never understand this argument. It applies to almost every dish, you know. Is it really that impossible to imagine that a dish could have started out as a way to use up ingredients, but then been refined and improved into something better and more precise?

[Anonymous No.6567264]

>>6567259
What it means is that there is no such thing as "an authentic chili", and people who claim there is, are deluded manchildren.

[Anonymous No.6567267]

i've never had it, but i've heard you can make something that resembles tomato sauce out of bell peppers.

if you simmered some beef in this sauce, would that count as authentic chili?

bell peppers are technically chilies.

[Anonymous No.6567270]

>>6567259
There's no authentic chili. I think you may have read to much into my post.

>>6567264
Hit the nail on the head thank you

[Anonymous No.6567286]

>>6567264
>>6567270

But why? I don't think the word authentic is supposed to refer to how the dish was first conceived, but to what it was when it developed into a consistent and well defined thing with cultural significance.

Is there an authentic anything, in your view? Or is it just chili that is not allowed to have rules about what is and isn't authentic?

[Anonymous No.6567317]

>>6563828
lmaooooo that gif

[Anonymous No.6567321]

>>6567286

I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I think authenticicity is a tricky subject.

It depends on the dish. Some dishes are very specific in their instructions. They tend to be fancy food, for example a lot of the classic French stuff documented by Escoffier: Saddle of Veal Prinz Orloff and whatnot. Beef Wellington. Lobster Americaine, etc. Those kinds of dishes tend to be duplicated nearly exactly wherever you might find them. There may be some minor exceptions here and there but they are usually very specific. The recipes are well documented, often by their inventor, and tend to be duplicated nearly identically each time you see them in print.

On the other hand you have peasant dishes. Things like stews and soups and whatnot. Those dishes tend to be as varied as the cooks who make them. There was never any specific recipe for something like chili--it was made by whatever the cowboys who made it had on hand. If they had beef, great! Use that. If they had venison instead, hey use that. Chili is not unique in this regard. If you asked ten Italians how to make a ragu or ten mexicans how to make salsa verde or ten cajuns about how to make gumbo they'd probably agree on a few major points here and there but each time you'd get 10 different recipes.

[Anonymous No.6567327]

>>6566778
>sugar

bro you're gross, and your recipe sucks dick

[Anonymous No.6567338]

>>6567321
Right, but one of the points Texans tend to agree on is 'no beans'.

I just can't shake my suspicions that people making the "there's no such thing as authenticity!" argument don't really mean it, don't apply it consistently, and in fact point their ire at chili but not at other traditions, particularly not at the traditions of minority groups, because they don't think privileged straight white males should be allowed any cultural heritage.

Then there's the people whose chili is garbage, who rely on beans to differentiate it from bolognese, and so who can't see how chili without beans could be any good.

Lots of the no beans guys may be obsessive autists but I find myself sympathising with them more than the other side, despite putting beans in my own chili more often than not.

[Anonymous No.6567341]

>>6567286
Guy you replied to.
Authentic does have its place but a thing like chili is one where authentic is just a buzzword.
The original inception of chili was not just meat it was what people could find.
It's not that it shouldn't have rules bit to say adding beans isn't chili is pedantic and stupid.

[Anonymous No.6567350]

>>6567338
That's fine and all but Texans don't have an authority on chili. They didn't invent it.
You're confusing the no such thing as authentic vs no such thing as authentic chili argument. I don't know if your purposely moving the goal post or accident.
P.s there's no authentic recipe for chili. It'll come varied

[Anonymous No.6567359]

>>6567338
>Right, but one of the points Texans tend to agree on is 'no beans'.

But that's the thing: how true is that? I wasn't born in Texas but I have lived here since 1982. I have eaten a zillion bowls of chili, and more often than not they contain beans. I have several friends who love to cook BBQ and chili and all but one of them use beans often. None of them really give a crap--you could serve them with beans or without beans and it's no big deal either way. On the other hand, I have seen them start fights over their preferred brand of "dip" (chewing tobacco). So I don't know where that "in Texas there's no beans" stereotype came from, but it's not true in my experience. Then again, things are often regional. Perhaps in a different city the preferences would be different?

[Anonymous No.6567366]

>>6567267
You wanna use dried chilis like the mexicans make.

[Anonymous No.6567481]

I put beans and carrots in my chillie and nobody can stop me.

[Anonymous No.6567672]

>>6567350
>but Texans don't have an authority on chili. They didn't invent it.

Er, yes they did. If you're going to say that the natives were cooking meat and chili peppers together before white people came along - by that logic, Italians didn't invent espresso. The particular dish that is currently known as chili was probably influenced by several different things, but first became known as a thing in its own right, in its current form, in Texas. It is historically, culturally, Texan. I don't know why this upsets some people so much.

[Anonymous No.6567687]

>>6567672
This is what texans actually believe.
Secede already.

[Anonymous No.6567730]

>>6567687
Not even a Texan.

Anon, why does it upset you so much that chili is Texan in origin? Let's compare with gumbo. People have been cooking vegetable and fish stew with roux before they did it in Louisiana, and gumbo is a peasant dish, for using up whatever you have to hand, and it's based on French techniques. So gumbo isn't Louisianan, and you can call anything you want gumbo because there's no such thing as authentic gumbo. Is that right?

[Anonymous No.6567738]

>>6567481
>I put beans and carrots in my chillie and nobody can stop me.

Good for you young man
>>6567672
>Texans invented chili
Okay Texas red what ever you say.
It's a meal that was made based on what could be found. I don't think people were like hey we can't throw beans in it or else it wont be authentic though we need to stretch this food.
I don't know Texans think they invited any food.
Please be an autismo elsewhere

[Anonymous No.6567742]

>>6567730
>having this much retard strength to move goal posts that far.

[Anonymous No.6567743]

if youre cooking it
cook it any fuck the way you want to
call it what the fuck ever you want to
i always put beans in my chili & i still always call it chili
what kind of pretentious dicknose would even argue about something this petty

[Anonymous No.6567744]

>>6567738
>It's a meal that was made based on what could be found.

Yes. But how does that have anything whatsoever to do with where the dish originated?

Also, where do you think chili originated if not Texas? (not the US state, but the geographical area as it certainly pre-dates the "state")

[Anonymous No.6567748]

>>6567744
But there's no such thing as authentic chili.
You're being dense on purpose.
Again I don't think people who were out in uncharted territory didn't go we shouldn't put beans in this or else it isn't authentic. "
As for region chili as we know it is a southwestern thing. Not just Texas you big dumb texasfag.

[Anonymous No.6567753]

>>6567738
>>6567341
>The original inception of chili was not just meat it was what people could find.
>It's a meal that was made based on what could be found.

Every peasant dish originated this way. That doesn't mean it wasn't developed and refined into something more specific and tastier, with a specific name becoming attached, that name being the name that you refer to the dish as today.

When people talk about the authentic X, they're not talking about the precursor to X or its very beginnings, the first thing that was ever made that in any way resembled it. They're talking about X after it had developed into a consistent idea and named. If you really think that any dish that started out as being a way to use whatever ingredients you had cannot be authentic and/or didn't originate anywhere, you're ruling out an awful lot of dishes for a very arbitrary and stupid reason.

>>6567743
Nobody is arguing about what you're allowed to cook, anon! Cook whatever you like and call it whatever you like! That's not the goddamn question. Not everything you cook has to be, or should be, authentic. Why would you think otherwise? I'm sure almost nothing I cook is 'authentic' and I don't give a shit. That doesn't mean authentic is not a real concept.

Why are you so insistent that EITHER what you personally cook must be considered authentic, OR authenticity cannot exist? Have you considered that authentic does not equal tasty?

[Anonymous No.6567754]

>>6567743
>who would argue about chili
Welcome to /ck/ wa la!

[Anonymous No.6567756]

>>6567317
> gif

[Anonymous No.6567758]

>>6567748
I cooked a great gumbo yesterday. It was a lentil and potato stew. This is just as authentic as what anyone else thinks is authentic gumbo, and you can't prove otherwise because muh peasant dish muh using up ingredients, etc etc.

[Anonymous No.6567762]

>>6563773

My wife made minestrone soup for dinner yesterday.
It had white beans in it.
Guess I really ate Minestrone Stew.
Thanks OP.

[Anonymous No.6567763]

>>6567753
>ruling out dishes on arbitrary reasons
Says the person who says chili with beans isn't chili
That's my initial point and your misrepresenting my point so bad.
Even with refinement chili with beans is still chili

[Anonymous No.6567764]

>>6567748
>But there's no such thing as authentic chili.

I agree. I'm not claiming that there is one specific recipe.

>You're being dense on purpose.
Yes. Because I don't understand your point. I want you to explain it more clearly. I think that you think that I am making points that I am not making.

>>As for region chili as we know it is a southwestern thing

But a dish doesn't magically originate in that large an area. It starts somewhere and it grows from there. Where do you think it started from if not from the area that we now call Texas? It's pretty clear it didn't come from the south as a whole due to the Mexican influence.

>>you big dumb texasfag.
I'm Danish.

[Anonymous No.6567765]

>>6567758
What are you even babbling about?

[Anonymous No.6567769]

>>6567764
My point was that there is no one way to make chili and adding beans still makes it chili

[Anonymous No.6567770]

>>6567763
>Says the person who says chili with beans isn't chili

No, I say it isn't authentic. But who cares? I put beans in my chili. I'm not trying to make it authentic, I'm trying to make it tasty.

[Anonymous No.6567776]

>>6567765
If you think that a peasant dish that originated through people using ingredients they had to hand can't be authentic, surely you apply that to all peasant dishes, right?

[Anonymous No.6567778]

>>6567764
Also Mexicans didn't only inhabit texas. They controlled the south west and it's possible for it to originate in a region.
And also damage control much

[Anonymous No.6567780]

>>6567776
Nice try but you're just loading the question.

[Anonymous No.6567786]

>>6567780
How am I loading the question? Your argument is that a peasant dish cannot be authentic because it originated from people just using up ingredients they had, right? So, why doesn't that apply to all peasant dishes? Or is it just chili that you think cannot be authentic?

[Anonymous No.6567797]

>>6567786
My argument was that there's no authentic chili.
Just with chili. That's the only thing I've been talking about not any other dish but chili.

[Anonymous No.6567805]

>>6567797
Why is there no authentic chili?

[Anonymous No.6567812]

>>6567769

I've got no complaint about that whatsoever. I agree.

>>6567778
>>Also Mexicans didn't only inhabit texas. They controlled the south west and it's possible for it to originate in a region.

We pretty much agree then. We're just nitpicking about terminology.

[Anonymous No.6567814]

>>6567805
Please tell me what makes a chili authentic?

[Anonymous No.6567818]

>>6567786
>So, why doesn't that apply to all peasant dishes?

It does apply to all peasant dishes, as I mentioned back in >>6567321

[Anonymous No.6567826]

>>6567812
Pretty much.
I also was saying because it's so varying about what was in Ina chili that there is no one way to make it.
Like a pineapple upside down cake. It's pretty straight foward that you can't vary much before it's a different dish (really weak example I know) but with chili probably the spices and ingredients ranged so much that there is different ways to do it

[Anonymous No.6567829]

>>6567814

Not the guy you're replying to, but IMHO the only thing required for "Authentic Chili" is that it's a stewed dish based on chili peppers and flavored with seasonings typical to the southwestern US and northern Mexico. I might go so far as to say it needs to contain meat since what most people mean by the word "chili" is "chili con carne", and that would imply there is meat it in it.

IMHO there is no specific recipe.

[Anonymous No.6567833]

>>6563773
>Stew has beans.

Had this stew at Taco Bell for lunch yesterday.

The plebs at Taco Bell still list it as a Burrito Supreme on their menu. It's got beans, dumbasses.

[Anonymous No.6567837]

>>6567818
If your contention is just that Texans don't really care about beans, then fine. Although a fair few of them do seem to, enough that 'Texan chili has no beans' has become well known. I don't mean to imply that what is or isn't an authentic version of something is concrete and agreed upon by everyone. Different people will have different ideas about what precisely makes something authentic. That's not the same as authenticity not existing in these situations, though.

Also, the question is not about the origins of the dish, but about what it was like when it was more consistent and codified. This is why "it's a dish made from whatever people had to hand!" seems like such a weak argument to me. Of course it was - that applies to many, many dishes. But over time, each particular combination of 'whatever people had to hand' became more focused, as people determined what they liked and what worked well together. People started intentionally combining certain ingredients rather than just throwing in anything. People began seeking out components for the dish. A name for the dish was gradually agreed upon. This is the dish that is referred to when people talk about an authentic version - not the first time anyone in that area threw together something with the barest resemblance to the dish we know today.

[Anonymous No.6567841]

>>6567321
>It depends on the dish. Some dishes are very specific in their instructions. They tend to be fancy food, for example...Lobster Americaine
>On the other hand you have peasant dishes.
Dude, lobster IS a peasant dish, or at least was...

[Anonymous No.6567861]

>>6567837
>If your contention is just that Texans don't really care about beans, then fine.

Yes. But it's not just beans. Its pretty much everything except the chili peppers that's variable. Some people swear by chocolate in chili. Other people hate the idea. Some use tomatoes, some don't, etc.

>>Although a fair few of them do seem to, enough that 'Texan chili has no beans' has become well known.
Well known, but also potentially apocryphal. See: >>6567359

>>Also, the question is not about the origins of the dish

Actually, that IS what I was asking. Because in my opinion chili has not become consistent or codified.

>>This is the dish that is referred to when people talk about an authentic version

But the point is that's not true. If you were to find the stereotypical ideal Texan that seems to be mentioned a lot he might swear on his boots that there should be no beans. But his Mexican buddy grew up making it with beans. And their friend who flew in from Chicago serves it on spaghetti and adds cinnamon. Why would any of these be more or less authetnic than another?

Like someone else posted earlier in the thread there's all sorts of regitional variations like this, with all sorts of dishes. I've seen it with pasta dishes in Italy, curries in Thailand, etc. Go to Louisana, for example, and get people started on creole vs. cajun takes on "gumbo". Just because the next city nearby makes a different version than you do doesn't make either of them any less authentic. There simply is no single "authentic" recipe here because there is no consensus on the recipe. The very idea is flawed.

[Anonymous No.6567876]

>>6567829
I could agree with the flavor profile and seasoning but there can be vegetarian chili too.

[Anonymous No.6567888]

>>6567833
I keked a lot more than I should have

[Anonymous No.6567890]

>>6567841

First off, Lobster Americane is not just "lobster". It's a specific dish invented by some hoity-toity french Chef. It's almost always served the exact same way every time.

Second off, there's a lot of misunderstanding about lobster and "peasant food". In general, Lobster has always been an expensive delicacy. However what appears to be confusing people is that at a particular point in time there was a glut of lobster in New England. And this was before the days of refrigeration. So even though it was theoretically an expensive commodity there was no way to do much of anything with it because it couldn't be transported. At that time it was served to prisoners, easily afforded by the poor, etc. But that was one specific and localized event. It is not typical of lobster in general.

[Anonymous No.6567903]

>>6567890

if it's got beans in it then it's stew

[Anonymous No.6567906]

>>6567837
The they made it with what they had is not a weak argument because some of those stuck around and they took it with them where they went and handed it down (recipe ) and variations were made so to say it's a weak argument is wrong

[Anonymous No.6567909]

>>6567876
>there can be vegetarian chili too

[Anonymous No.6567914]

>>6567876

That's why I made the "chili con carne" statement. To the average person chili implies meat, even though the pedantic term would be "chili con carne"

[Anonymous No.6567916]

>>6567903
Taco bell sells a lot of stews

[Anonymous No.6567919]

>>6567909
>being this autismo in this thread

[Anonymous No.6567923]

>>6567914
Good point

[Incognito !ASSMANwZEM No.6567935]

>>6567833
>>6567888
nice repeating digits

>chili must NEVER EVER have beans in it

[Anonymous No.6567940]

>>6567935
So a stew with potatoes carrots and a meat without beans is a chili by your logic?

[Anonymous No.6567962]

Always some ignorant fags coming here saying "chili can't have beans."

These faggots don't know that chili has been made for thousands of years in the americas. Various meats (usually fish, turkey, bison, deer), tomatoes or no tomatoes, chilies of far more varieties than these no-bean fags ever have seen, and yes, beans have been used in chili.

What does something need to be a chili? All it fucking needs is to be a soup/stew made primarily with chilies as the sauce.

There are historical records of the aztecs making big pots of chili with tomatoes, chilies, beans, and the meat? The meat was to be Cortez and his men.