Posted on 04/16/2009 12:26:37 PM PDT by JoeProBono
Chili con carne, better known as chili for short, was named Official State Dish of Texas back in the late 1970s.
Why chili and not barbecue or steak? According to Paul Burka, political writer, food guru, and all-around resident curmudgeon of Texas Monthly magazine, the esteemed members of the Texas State Legislature were bribed with beer (probably enough to do the trick) and free chili by a lobbyist for the cause. In his article, "I Still Hate Chili," Burka notes, "(Chili lobbyist) Robert Marsh brewed what he claimed to be the world's largest pot of chili to feed to the members of the Legislature: 259 gallons weighing over 2500 pounds. Marsh also persuaded Pearl to donate 24 cases of beer, which several lawmakers told me had more to do with the bill's ultimate success than the taste of the chili." In short, politics as usual...and we were right about the beer's influence.
Chili, after all, is hardly Texan in origin. In fact, it may have been bought to the United States by settlers from the Canary Islands.
According to Robb Walsh, author of The Tex-Mex Cookbook, fifteen families arrived in San Antonio, in March, 1731, bringing their Berber-influenced love of spices with them. He adds that the Canary Island women reportedly made a stew of cumin, wild onions, chili peppers, the available herbs and cooked according to custom in big copper kettles outdoors in the plaza. Over time, meat was added and the dish evolved into modern chili.
Descendants of those original cooks kept up the practice of selling their rude fare well into the 20th century and became known as Chili Queens...until they were chased from downtown plazas for health reasons.
Other theories abound for the origin of chili. W.C. Jameson notes a dozen or so in his book, The Ultimate Chili Cookbook, speculating that the dish could have also come from Gold Rush settlers, Old West cowboys of--most mysteriously--La Dama de Azul (The Lady in Blue), a 17th Century Spanish nun who in a series of prophetic trances, told of visiting a distant land where she walked among natives and spoke to them about Christianity. With amazing accuracy, she described a dish consisting of venison, onions, tomatoes and peppers, an impressive feat considering she apparently died without ever having visited the New World.....
That chili with the beans in that picture is not from Texas.
Chili does not have beans in it. Beans are a side dish.
I see beans so that ain’t chili
Right.
It’s just “meat sauce” without beans.
No beans.
....made a stew of cumin, wild onions, chili peppers, the available herbs and cooked according to custom in big copper kettles outdoors in the plaza. Over time, meat was added and the dish evolved into modern chili.
....With amazing accuracy, she described a dish consisting of venison, onions, tomatoes and peppers...
No mention of beans in the ingredients.
Paul Burka is a flaming liberal. He's the big reason I long ago quit buying and reading Texas Monthly.
I’m sweating jes thinking ‘bout it. MMMMM
Hey, Pa! What's fer dinner?
"Why chili. Yum, Yum...."
I rarely look to articles as definitive sources on anything.
Like I said, meat sauce.
When I saw this headline, I knew the bean argument would break out. I, by the way, am anti-beans in chile so don’t start in on me.
Hah, was about to ask why a bowl of beans is being shown.
In my area of NM it is Chile con Carne, chunks of meat with red chile, or chili, hamburger and beans with red chile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.