I say it’s short for Chile con Carne because beans are the baseline chili - I’d eat chili with beans and no meat, Chile sin Carne, that’s a meal by itself.
But chili with meat and no beans, like Chile Colorado, needs to be served with beans and rice, it’s not good by itself. I do make that sometimes but people just call it “meat” when I do. Nobody here thinks of it as chili.
I don’t think any food is pure. Traditions are forever changing.
boonhet@lemm.ee 5 days ago
It’s also not short for chili con carne y tomates, so best not put any tomato in there either, eh?
Liz@midwest.social 5 days ago
I’m pretty sure it’s actually short for chili con carne, tomates, espinaca, frijoles, maíze, arroz, más frijoles, calabacín, brócoli, pimientos verdes, comino, chipotle, y pimentón ahumado.
boonhet@lemm.ee 5 days ago
Ah, I see you looked it up in the dictionary
FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Again, I don’t necessarily disagree about it from a competition/traditionalist perspective, but I’m going to put it in mine because I like it. That said, I do find that most recipes are akin to a tomato, meat, and beans stew and are sorely lacking in the chilis that the dish is named after.
brian@programming.dev 5 days ago
the state of texas agrees