tee - You've missed the point (insert Aggie joke here).
The issue has never been what the dish contains. You and others are correct in their comments about experimentation, comparison, blending ideas, etc. The issue is how far can you stray from the original recipe (chiles, meat, and maybe suet & some spices) and still call it chili. I maintain that if your recipe includes beans and/or a significant amount of tomatoes, then it may be an excellent dish but it should be called something other than "chili" to differentiate it from the original. Adjectives are allowed as in the case of Cincinnati Chili, Firehouse Chili, etc.
There was no "miss"...There WAS an attempt to broaden our perspective on a food item larger than Texas ( I am qualified genetically, by birthright, and my geographical upbringing to make the former statement
)- and with far more fans than detractors.
Fans are the impetus for perspective - and should qualifiedly be THE reason for what to call a food item. There are no "food police" with authority in this specific area. We are not in France
. So, I believe that the only reasonable approach is to say that "chili"...is just like BBQ.
A lot of folks call something they like BBQ - when I would not believe it to be such. But...they even have such purportedly in Hawaii...so - who am I to argue with them?
