A really dumb chili question?



cebollas - I just like chopped scallions or raw onions on my chili.

also "fritos" as in Frigos brand corn chips - what's the real Spanish
word for those?
Lynn in Fargo
 
"Lynn from Fargo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> cebollas - I just like chopped scallions or raw onions on my chili.
>
> also "fritos" as in Frigos brand corn chips - what's the real Spanish
> word for those?
> Lynn in Fargo

I think it is "serrin prensar" (pressed sawdust) Just kidding. I like
scallions too, esp. if the chili is topped with sour cream.
Lefty
--
"Even a child who is pure at heart
And does his homework neatly
May become a wolf when the wolfsbane blooms
And the moon is full, completely."
>
 
Ruddell wrote:

> A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
> get dropped.

Maybe the question should be when did it become chilli con carne instead of just
plain chilli.
That would be when they added meat to it and the chilli became chilli con (with)
carne (meat).
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> > dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
> > get dropped.
>
> Maybe the question should be when did it become chilli con carne instead of just
> plain chilli.
> That would be when they added meat to it and the chilli became chilli con (with)
> carne (meat).
>
>

Some purists claim - falsely - that "real" chili contains only meat.
They would say that chili with beans should be called chili con
frijoles.

Peter Aitken
 
In message <[email protected]>, Peter A
<[email protected]> writes
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> > A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
>> > dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
>> > get dropped.
>>
>> Maybe the question should be when did it become chilli con carne
>>instead of just
>> plain chilli.
>> That would be when they added meat to it and the chilli became chilli
>>con (with)
>> carne (meat).
>>
>>
>
>Some purists claim - falsely - that "real" chili contains only meat.
>They would say that chili with beans should be called chili con
>frijoles.
>
>Peter Aitken

When I visited Austin, Texas, I was told 'If you know beans about chili,
you know chili don't have no beans' -- and the only recipe I have ever
used beans in is - Chili Con Carne.

But what do I know...?
--
Chris Hughes
"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist."
http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Peter A <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > > A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> > > dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne'
> > > first
> > > get dropped.
> >
> > Maybe the question should be when did it become chilli con carne instead of
> > just
> > plain chilli.
> > That would be when they added meat to it and the chilli became chilli con
> > (with)
> > carne (meat).
> >
> >
>
> Some purists claim - falsely - that "real" chili contains only meat.
> They would say that chili with beans should be called chili con
> frijoles.
>
> Peter Aitken

I have to concur with that. <G>
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-*****." -Jack Nicholson
 
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:25:08 GMT, Peter A <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> > A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
>> > dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
>> > get dropped.
>>
>> Maybe the question should be when did it become chilli con carne instead of just
>> plain chilli.
>> That would be when they added meat to it and the chilli became chilli con (with)
>> carne (meat).
>>
>>
>
>Some purists claim - falsely - that "real" chili contains only meat.
>They would say that chili with beans should be called chili con
>frijoles.
>
>Peter Aitken


Of course not - it has chili in it. What a dumb comment! Otherwise
you would just call it "meat." ;->


jim
 
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:19:43 -0600, Chris Hughes wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):


> When I visited Austin, Texas, I was told 'If you know beans about chili,
> you know chili don't have no beans' -- and the only recipe I have ever
> used beans in is - Chili Con Carne.

Dave's question was interesting because I had always though the con carne was
the original? Con carne meaning 'with meat' makes sense yet I guess somehow
it got dropped along the way with most assuming meat was one of the essential
ingredients (along with chili pepper(s) of course). I did find that Texas
is where the dish started and beans aren't really thought of that highly in
it. Of course, the only think I know about Texas is that tv soap and the
Cowboys (I'm a Bengals fan so I guess I can stop here).

> But what do I know...?

Oh good grief. So many questions today...



--
Cheers!

Dennis

Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
 
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:25:04 -0600, Ruddell
<ruddell'Elle-Kabong'@canada.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:19:43 -0600, Chris Hughes wrote
>(in article <[email protected]>):
>
>
>> When I visited Austin, Texas, I was told 'If you know beans about chili,
>> you know chili don't have no beans' -- and the only recipe I have ever
>> used beans in is - Chili Con Carne.
>
>Dave's question was interesting because I had always though the con carne was
>the original? Con carne meaning 'with meat' makes sense yet I guess somehow
>it got dropped along the way with most assuming meat was one of the essential
>ingredients (along with chili pepper(s) of course). I did find that Texas
>is where the dish started and beans aren't really thought of that highly in
>it. Of course, the only think I know about Texas is that tv soap and the
>Cowboys (I'm a Bengals fan so I guess I can stop here).
>
>> But what do I know...?
>
>Oh good grief. So many questions today...


First there was straight chili. Then meat,. Someone added beans and
still called it chili because saying chili con frijoles took too long.
To clear up the confusion, chili con carne came along, erroneously,
because all (excepting vegetarian chili) had meat in it.


jim
who has some 700 chili recipes and no vegetarian before the 1960s and
none with beans before 1880.

So, if you have a provable pre-1960 vegetarian chili recipe, send it
my way. If you have a provable pre-1880 chili recipe with beans in it,
send it my way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back