Fruit in curries was quite clearly a thing.
My one really dud experience at Satya was when once several years ago I ordered the "Navratan Koorma", described in the menu as "Fruits nuts and veges cooked in koorma", and was served what seemed to be their standard vegetable korma with half a tin of Watties fruit salad emptied over the top, complete with a few pale bits of cherry. Since then I've tried almost everything else on the menu and loved it all.
I've never quite had the nerve to order Navratan Koorma again and discover whether the one I had was some kind of aberration. Or perhaps tinned fruit salad is a common ingredient in southern India, and I'm just being precious.
Also, everyone's talking about sausage curries with sultana and apple etc., but am I the only one here whose standard childhood curry was mince curry with fruit?
Are things different in other cities? Are there regional Indian restaurants?
Satya is South Indian, but as you say they have a few of the northern/Anglo Indian fall-backs just in case. There are a few good Sri Lankan places around: 7 Siri in Sandringham has excellent food (try the Lump Rice) but the service is indifferent; and there used to be a really good one in a dodgy foodcourt in East Tamaki, I forget the name.
I seem to recall sultanas being de rigueur in my granddad’s sausage curry.
"Sultanas the size of boiled eggs" as I believe Terry Pratchett termed it.
butter chicken [...] has a safe English name involving two ordinary Pakeha ingredients
There's an amusing family anecdote about my grandparents being broadsided by "Butter Chicken" pies from their local dairy. Amusing to us; they were livid.
Look how hard Stephen Morris is working in that last one. No wonder he was so early on the drum machine bandwagon. And Curtis trying to get his dance on, but the audience is giving him nothing. Not that it would have helped.
I'm young enough that the details of the first couple of international bands I heard are available online as an aid to memory, no doubt due to the efforts of a few geeky fans: Supergrass at Wellington Town Hall and The Gurgs at the VUW Student Union, both in 2000. I would have been 17.
I'm pretty sure I had been to local gigs earlier (I'm not counting Smokefree Rockquest), but I can't remember what. I heard the Clean reunion at the old Bodega whenever that was, and that wasn't the first gig I went to there (anyone know when it was pulled down?).
Of course the first proper concert I went to was the Orpheus Choir singing the Bach Mass in B Minor when I was 9 or 10.
no boycott of any advertiser was undertaken or, so far as I’m aware, even proposed
It's like the Man Ban: if you can convince enough people to call it a duck loudly enough and frequently enough then it is a duck.
Whereas I’d say: it’s not going to die until you counter the idea, rather than silence some of those who give it wide currency.
THEY ARE NOT SILENCED. And they lost their platform because the idea was countered, effectively.
And other people have no trouble deciding either, they just disagree. There are plenty of people out there who consider that telling women that “no means no” is dangerous because it they don’t think it will protect women from rape, and may discourage actions they consider would protect women from rape.
And if they think they can mobilise public opinion to back their actions they're welcome to try. I think Ben nails your misconception:
No, it IS an expression of an idea. A very strong expression of a widely felt and held idea. It entered the marketplace and crushed the competition.
The idea was floated on the marketplace that it was harmful for JT and Willie to continue having a paid platform for their speech. It won. This is speech, no?
The cure for free speech you don't like is more speech. Gio's "more speech" was "Hey advertisers, how do you like this?". Advertiser's "more speech" was, on the whole, "Not much". No boycott.
Photo-shopping the head of a female politician onto the body of adult film star is an exercise of free speech, as is publicly commenting upon which people you consider are ugly, and who you would like to “do”. But it is speech that risks discouraging other ideas from being expressed.
And engaging in entitled chauvinistic victim-blaming of a young woman on air is also speech that risks discouraging other ideas from being expressed, specifically any idea a woman might have of reporting a sexual assault. I have no trouble deciding which of these speeches is worth protecting.