SC - Brewing/Vintning PA law

Wed Apr 21 07:32:53 PDT 1999

Then study it's evolution, but do not deride it's evolved forms, simply because thay have changed.

If a biologist claims to study the evolution of Primates, but chooses to ignore the great apes, and humans, 
because they are not exactly like Tarsiers (one of the more primitive primates), 
then that bioligist is not researching Primate evolution, he is researching Tarsiers.

If you are looking into the evolution and development of chili dishes, then ignoring any regional variant other than Texan or TexMex, means that you are only looking into Texas chilis.
It is incorrect to say that other regional chilis are not "chili". 
They are only not "Texas" Chili.
I have never claimed to make a "Texas" chili. 
Yet there are those who have claimed, derisively, that what I make is not "chili", as if the only chili that ever was, and ever is, is Texas chili. This is an old hot button with me,

My point is that a label like "chili" is useful only as far as a name goes. It helps to classify the dish. 
I suppose I could call it "Spicey stew of Ground beef and beans with chile and garlic"
"Chili" means the same thing to me, and says it in a lot less time!.

This is NOT, as some have claimed, "The end of Regional Cuisine". it is merely the evolution of it.
IF I wanted to make a Texas Regional variant of Chili, I would do it in the style of the Texas preparation.
If a dish had evolved significantly form the 12th century to the 17th century, and I chose to make that dish I could choose either variant.
BUT if I were trying to recreate a "temproal regional" variant, say for a 12th century feast, it would be foolish not to make the 12th century variant.

The point is that chili has evolved beyond the Texas region. You can keep to your region, but do not deny that the other regional variants exist. They just do not exist as "Texas" chili. but I never heard anyone form Cincinatti claim to make a "Texas" chili.
I do, by the way, dislike "Cincinatti" Chili.

Buffalo Wings, however, are a different beastie... 
Because the region is a part of the name, if you are not making the regional variant, you are not making the dish.
That deep fried concoction with the mildly spicy coating spoken of should have been called "hot" wings or some such. 
"Buffalo Style" means in the style that is made in Buffalo.  Just like "Texas style" chili. 
If you use a regional name, then use the correct regional method. 

If you are not using a REGIONAL name, to rephrase my question, who cares what regional variant you use as a recipe?

That is all I am goning to post on this topic on this forum. If you want to continue this, email me directly. 

brandu

>>> <LrdRas at aol.com> 04/20 4:50 PM >>>
In a message dated 4/20/99 1:54:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
JGedney at dictaphone.com writes:

<< Who cares what it's called?

 brandu >>

Those of us interested in the evolution of various recipes care a great deal.

Ras
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================

============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================