FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

Chris Hughes

In message >, Peter A
> writes
>In article >,
>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