Huevos con salsa- was Re: SC - Turkish Breakfast - OOP

[Philip & Susan Troy]

"Alderton, Philippa" wrote:
> 
> Also, I've been corresponding with a lady on the subject of Period Aztec
> foods, and she feels that the chili con carne (which says a bit right there)
> that you adhere to is most likely a semi modern Texican invention, and that
> in period, there were a number of chile/bean/tomato/other vegetables stews,
> most without meat, but some with (mostly turkey and dog). Apparantly, the
> Native American Mexicans had very little meat, but would throw it in the pot
> when they did, thus making the chili you consider heretical. They also had
> no fat, and thus wouldn't fry, making refritos OOP.
> 
> We might all be coming to the same meal from different places here, you
> thinking of the NAMED chili as being the dish you were describing, sorta
> like Buffalo Wings, with similar dishes acquiring the same name over time.
> 
> Thoughts?

As has been suggested by our Venerable Papa, I think we're looking at a
sort of retroactive orthodoxy here. Certainly any dish, among
Spanish-speaking peoples, made from chilis and meat can be, and are,
called chili con carne. My point, which I don't want to get into in
great depth again (speaking of oatmeal), was that the specific style
used in Texas (itself having variants), is considered _by many Texans_
the pre-eminent style, and is defined by certain criteria, generally,
but not exclusively, consisting of, etc., etc. These criteria were not
actually codified until the 1960's, according to researched available
foods for chuck wagon cooks, etc. Kinda similar, in a way, to the
medievaloid dishes invented by modern SCAdians who eliminate ingredients
from the New World. In this case, though, it's an attempt to recreate a
style of cookery considered more honest and less pretentious than what
is being proliferated as food today (remember we're talking about the
60's): revisionist 19th-century food. The fact that the best chili I've
ever had has been made according to these criteria is coincidental.

Of course what most people seem to be missing is that the whole thing
was a joke from the start... the problem may be that Texans are a bit
more deadpan in their humor than other Americans. Certainly it was clear
the pro-bean, pro-tomato, Los Angeles camp were joking. Maybe people
just need to go read Tolbert's book on the subject to get a better idea.

Along similar lines we have the moro...the foo...the people who
pontificate on Authentic (tm) Newe Englande Clamme Chee-ow-duh,
completely ignoring the huge number of documented 19th century New
England (and there appear to be _no_ written recipes for such dishes
prior to the 19th century, BTW, if one wants to quibble about ancient
tradition) that are full of the evil weed, tomato. Manhattan Chowder is
Montauk Chowder is Block Island Chowder is Newport Chowder, which is,
the last time I checked, in New England. The most influential New
England cookbook of the 19th century, prior to Fanny Farmer, was Lydia
Childs' "The American Frugal Housewife", published in Boston, I believe,
in the 1830's. Childs' recipe calls for a _cup_ of tomato ketchup to be
added to chowder. Yes, as Lord Ras will be happy to hear us reminded,
the tomato ketchup of the 1830's was a very different article from the
sludge we can buy today. The ancient traditions of which people speak
(salt pork, milk and/or cream, powdered pilot crackers or white roux,
and not a hack of a lot else) appear to be about 47 minutes ancient.
 
Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com
============================================================================

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".

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