That's true and I have seen gumbos made without seafood but I have never eaten them without some type of seafood added. Yeah, as RMTex says above you better be on your Ps and Qs if you make it that quick.
You can't make roux fast. I've tried. It's pretty dangerous. You should wear a glove, because you will likely get some splatters on your hand, because you'll have to hold the skillet with one hand while rapidly stirring with the other. A splatter of roux at 450-500 degrees will almost instantly give you a second degree burn. The big problem with doing it quick is that while you can get the color and flavor, you ruin it's thickening property. And it's easy to ruin the flavor, as well. Flour cannot be cooked at that heat without bursting the molecules that act as the thickening. All the effort to combine the flour and oil into a thickening agent is completely ruined. You can see the result once adding the stock...the stock and roux don't combine as well. Watching how it clings to a spoon wrong is proof. Then you end up having to thicken it another way. If you really want to avoid stirring for 1-1.5 hours, try what my mom does and put it in the oven instead at low temp. never tried, but she says it takes longer but is care free. I think you do it at low temp like 250. side tip: For roux's that you in more delicate dishes like etouffe or creole sauces, substitute butter or chicken fat for the vegetable oil. Not really needed in gumbo, as it has so many flavors anyhow. I still use chicken grease for gumbo roux, just because I usually have it handy from making the stock. reminds me: as with all gumbos and soups, the stock is the key. it basically IS the soup. make your own.
Chili without beans is chili. Chili with beans is Yankee faux-chili slop best served to drunken rubes at Salvation Army shelters.
I don't know whether it's chili or not, but I'll eat basically whatever kind of "chili" the wife makes, whether it has beans or not. Great flavor. Anyway, I've never known anyone who made Good Gumbo* who made Roux in 10 minutes. My aunt those has a major issue with seafood so she makes a vat of seafood gumbo and one that is made with chicken and sausage.
That battle has already been fought. The "Without Beans" people won. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=106285
Traditional "Texas chili", by definition, does not have beans. That's 100% true. However, that doesn't mean that "chili" can't have beans, because in fact MANY forms of chili have beans in regions all throughout the United States. Some recipes replaced the meat entirely with beans, and I agree that version should be referred to as "chili beans", because the main ingredient is the beans themselves. But regular chili with meat that happens to include beans is still chili, it's just not "Texas chili". I think it's really a matter of semantics.
Alright people let's get something perfectly clear.... The best chili has no beans in it. To support this statement, I present to you The International Chili Society. This is a society of Chili specialists from Australia, Canada, Mexico, Cayman Islands, and the United States. Cookoffs are conducted all over the US (and in those other countries), and a World Chili Championship Cookoff (WCCC) is held each year. Last year's winner won a $25,000 prize and the title of World's Best Chili. The ICS has been conducting world championship chili cookoffs for 41 years. In those 41 years NONE of the world championship chili recipes had beans in the recipe. What does this mean? It means that the best chilis do not have beans. Again, this is an international society, not limited to Texas. In fact, adding beans "or other fillers" to the recipes is against ICS rules (link1 link2). These people know their chili. They know more about it than you or I. And they know that chili is not supposed to have beans in it. Now, I don't want to tell you people that there aren't good "with-beans" chili recipes out there. And if you like beans in your chili, well that's okay. It's a free country. Eat your beans. But let's face facts. The best chili recipes don't contain beans. And that's all there is to it.
Disregarding theories that any stew with chiles and meat scraps constitutes "Chili," we can argue that Chili was invented during cattle drives starting in Texas, certainly American chili was vs Mexican chili con carne. The cooks would basically flavor water with beef jerky, dried chiles, fat and seasoning. This is Texas Red. There was no other chili in the US at this time. "Spices" like spent tobaco and coffee grinds were added and masa to thicken...as the cooks tried to improve it. Tomatoes did not travel well on cattle drives and beans were a side dish, besides meat was very plentiful. As the chili recipe spread, beans were added as a variation in places where meat was scarce. Even if you want to say Mexico was the origin of Chili and not Texas (arguable...more likely independently developed), we can say this is *not* a semantic argument. It is an argument of origin. Beans were not in the original recipes.
I don't have a gumbo recipe but a good stew recipe using green papaya. Papaya is a natural tenderizer and also has nice flavor too. I make a stew with beef brisket, green papaya, carrots, peas and onions. Just cut the brisket into cubes, cut up the papaya, carrot and onion and put in a pot with water and some soy sauce, pepper and wine to taste. Put over low heat or a crock pot and cook for about an hour.
