But that’s not “chili,” as in the dish of Tex-Mex origin we’re talking about in this thread. That is just some sort of stew that has chiles in it. That is not the same dish that came to be known simply as “chili” in the US.
You know what? I don’t think I’ve eaten a canned chili in a long time. Either it’s homemade or it’s from Wendy’s. I may need to look at this to make some frito pies for the super bowl, since I don’t think Wendy’s chili would fit.
Which one is the thickest and meatiest?
Seconded.
Well, since a large portion of the country envisions a bowl full of tomato based stew/soup, with ground beef and kidney beans when they hear the word “chili” (and have done so for decades), I think it’s safe, right, and proper to go ahead and declare that a bowl of Texas red is not the only thing that can correctly be referred to as “chili” in these United States.
You’re certainly not going to get any argument from me. Read my post 27.
I was perusing the canned chili in the store today and noticed that Pace (New York City!!) has come out with one now.
I also noticed one little lonely row of Armour kind of squished in amongst all the other canned chili.
Wolf Brand is very thick. I have to add a 1/4 cup water to get it all out of the can. You’ll find the meat has settled and stuck to the bottom of the can. Its worth adding the water and getting that meat. It’ll thin a little after its heated, but its the thickest chili I’ve eaten.
I made a Frito Pie a couple nights ago. Topped with shredded lettuce, cheddar and a dab of sour cream. A lot fancier than the chili pies Sonic used to sell. LOL
Amen. There is nothing more annoying that folks that are snobs about chili. Just accept language evolves and people can have chili with beans and without beans and its fine either way. Jeez-louise!
Out of habit, I use Wolf for the occasional ingredient–on a potato or fritos. My grandma called chili on noodles “chili mac”. (Before the invention of pasta.)
As a Texan since I was four years old, I make chili to please myself. If you’re going to enter a chili cookoff, the “no beans” rule holds. But the last I made at home (with the 2-alarm kit), I added a can of black beans. The instructions said I could do it! (Well, not “black” beans. Pintos are classic & I agree that kidney beans are just wrong.)
Nieman Marcus Chili Blanco uses white beans–but that’s a very different dish…
Their website says they don’t make it anymore, with no further info. I used to buy it at Walmart in Ohio- I figured that would have made it ubiquitous. When I no longer found it there, I just figured Walmart stopped carrying it. Not being much of a chili eater, I didn’t make much effort to seek it out.
When I googled it after seeing this thread, I was surprised how little information I found. When I used to buy it, it looked just like the pic you shared.
Also, I find the whole beans vs. no beans thing interesting. When I was a kid, I didn’t eat beans at all. So I would ask for chili with no beans or pick them out. I always thought that you were Supposed to have beans in chili and that was the default. I thought not having beans in the chili was an accommodation made for picky kids, not a typical way of eating it.
Once again, I think you’re arguing against a point nobody is making. Note that I said exactly that in post 27 (does anybody read for comprehension?): that the word has evolved and includes all types of chili pepper based stews, including vegetarian varieties. Personally, I make chili with beans, and chili without beans. Red chili, white chili, green chili, etc. It’s all chili.
"Q. Does Bush Brothers & Company still make Homestyle Chili?
A. We no longer make our Homestyle Chili and we have no remaining inventory. We have no plans to reintroduce our Homestyle Chili in the future.
We apologize for any disappointment this may have caused, but like Duke, we are not able to share the recipe for our Homestyle Chili."
In response, I submit Post #47, #50.
I’m not sure I’m reading post #47 the same way, but I’ll give you post #50. I grew up on chili generally having beans in it, but even in Chicago, there are some places (like Lindy’s, for instance), where they serve “chili” and “chili with beans” to make the distinction (and the chili with beans is less expensive than the plain chili.) “Chili” means many things to many people, so it’s best to ask. The term on its own it does not imply the presence or absence of beans–that depends on context and location–but originally, it is a shortening of “chili con carne,” so those posters saying that the “con carne” is there to distinguish it from chili with beans are not quite correct etymologically. There is no doubt that today, though, “chili” means any of a multitude of hot peppers stews.
Other than the fact that the dish that came to be known as chili for the vast majority of the country is a “stew” that has “beans” in it; and that “Chili” is based on the Pre-Columbian name for the particular fruit. It annoys the fuck out of me to no end that a whole bunch of people so proudly and ignorantly claim that the only true use of the stewed version of that fruit happened, surprise, surprise, once some white dude first used it. The goddam chile was used in so many combinations before and after “texas red”, To whine with so much asinine arrogance that theirs is the only true formation of the goddamn stew, largely defined by the exclusion of a major ingredient that the first people to use it had., and certainly used.
So to sum up, it was better before your version, and better after your version, and you have no claim to the name since it is a combination of Nahuatl and Spanish. It is the worst bullshit of arbitrary prescriptivism, for the vast majority of people who have lived and are familiar with the term, chili or chile or “Chile” or “Chili” has beans, so stop whining and pretending that you are superior.
I’m not sure if you’re addressing a hypothetical “you” or me personally (I’m assuming the former), but so there is no confusion, I’m descriptivist in my definition of chili, merely pointing out the etymology of the word as used by its lonesome in the English language, and pointing out that the definition has longs since expanded.
Doesn’t that chip on your shoulder fall into your chili bowl?
I’m pretty sure that same question could be asked of you (and of me, on other topics) over the past decade.
I don’t begrudge him that point of view, since it can be exhausting dealing with the bean bitchers in every single chili thread that has ever existed.
And with that, a bowl of chicken green chili is simmering on the stove. 
Whoops. Wife’s account. That was me.