Friday, January 30, 2015

BEANS, BEANS, THE MAGICAL FRUIT:  Slate explains why beans have no place in a proper chili.


  1. bill.3:26 PM

    This is true and worthy of a Nobel peace prize.

  2. Benner4:45 PM

    Isn't it Capps who is "suggesting that the names of foods can mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean." He'd have us believe chili means only what it meant originally, i.e., what HE wants? Linguistic prescriptivism if there ever was. It's a genre - the point wasn't that the chili queens of San Antonio cooked with beef as a culinary choice, they cooked with what they had, slowly, and with smoke and spice. Chili can have beans, it can have meat, but it probably shouldn't have both. Arguments that one ingredient is essential is like saying it's not copyright infringement to record a song in a different key. Any Texan should be proud the food has transcended its initial roots, as proof the state isn't completely useless.

    Now, as to the debate over whether cheeseteaks can have swiss or mozzarella -- of course they can, they just taste less good as with provolone. But chili with beans can taste better than chili con carne, depending on time spent simmering.

  3. Joseph Finn12:26 AM

    I enjoy that Slate's trolling starts with reference an earlier, equally goofy piece of trolling.

  4. Linguistically, I'm surprised he chose not to capitalize Chili when speaking of the Texas dish.

  5. With apologies to Matt, the adorable thing about this article is that it assumes I give a rat's ass what people in Texas think I should call my food, or might want to conform my behavior to please them.