The notion of “decolonizing” wine is a fool’s errand that can’t be accomplished and we ought not to be so insulting as to try. However, the idea of “rethinking the lexicon of wine” has some merit. But this project needs to be much more thoroughly understood before the bandwagon is unhooked from its tether.
I'm mostly in agreement here, this is a well written response to the topic, Tom. Though I think these two statements are tossed out at the end w/o enough consideration: "Moreover, addressing the language of wine does not have the power to make the wine industry, let alone wine drinking, more inclusive. Finally, there is no appetite to de-Westernize or decolonize wine."
Adjusting language absolutely has the power to make anything more inclusive. Just as embracing foreign language films with accurately translated subtitles rather than practicing dubbing and "dubtitles" that are complete rewrites of the language to something more palatable to the mainstream creates a more inclusive industry and movie watching public. Plainly, this is not a direct/immediate effect, such as hiring or granting land rights to a more diverse group would bring, but that doesn't mean that addressing language does not or cannot contribute to greater inclusivity.
On the second point, I also think you're underestimating the appetite to de-Westernize/de-colonize. The appetite absolutely exists. If your definition of this is getting rid of wine from the culture entirely, then sure, no one wants to do that. But I didn't read anyone in any of the articles you referenced calling for that (though please correct me if I'm wrong there).
On a final note, while using "professional" jargon doesn't necessarily suggest active gatekeeping, it definitely can, and often does. A professional should know the audience they're addressing, and if in a mixed audience of differing experience levels, they should, as professionals, be able to address more advanced, intricate knowledge while also making sure newbies can follow the conversation. In most case, I'd argue, communicating with the inexperienced is far more critical than showboating knowledge to those who can already read a tech sheet and grasp most things mentioned there. If a tasting room - not a professional tasting panel, just a tasting room open to the general public - is dropping terms like "terpenes" or "pyrazines" to a mixed crowd whose knowledge base the speaker is uncertain of, that's arguably an ineffectively run tasting room. The context here is going to matter. And the wine world, mostly populated by enthusiasts and professionals, definitely suffers from an inability to perceive how alienating is is on a day-to-day basis. There's nothing inherently "bad" about this, but if we want to expand the audience and actually be inclusive in practice, it's a biggie of a hurdle.
I'm mostly in agreement here, this is a well written response to the topic, Tom. Though I think these two statements are tossed out at the end w/o enough consideration: "Moreover, addressing the language of wine does not have the power to make the wine industry, let alone wine drinking, more inclusive. Finally, there is no appetite to de-Westernize or decolonize wine."
Adjusting language absolutely has the power to make anything more inclusive. Just as embracing foreign language films with accurately translated subtitles rather than practicing dubbing and "dubtitles" that are complete rewrites of the language to something more palatable to the mainstream creates a more inclusive industry and movie watching public. Plainly, this is not a direct/immediate effect, such as hiring or granting land rights to a more diverse group would bring, but that doesn't mean that addressing language does not or cannot contribute to greater inclusivity.
On the second point, I also think you're underestimating the appetite to de-Westernize/de-colonize. The appetite absolutely exists. If your definition of this is getting rid of wine from the culture entirely, then sure, no one wants to do that. But I didn't read anyone in any of the articles you referenced calling for that (though please correct me if I'm wrong there).
On a final note, while using "professional" jargon doesn't necessarily suggest active gatekeeping, it definitely can, and often does. A professional should know the audience they're addressing, and if in a mixed audience of differing experience levels, they should, as professionals, be able to address more advanced, intricate knowledge while also making sure newbies can follow the conversation. In most case, I'd argue, communicating with the inexperienced is far more critical than showboating knowledge to those who can already read a tech sheet and grasp most things mentioned there. If a tasting room - not a professional tasting panel, just a tasting room open to the general public - is dropping terms like "terpenes" or "pyrazines" to a mixed crowd whose knowledge base the speaker is uncertain of, that's arguably an ineffectively run tasting room. The context here is going to matter. And the wine world, mostly populated by enthusiasts and professionals, definitely suffers from an inability to perceive how alienating is is on a day-to-day basis. There's nothing inherently "bad" about this, but if we want to expand the audience and actually be inclusive in practice, it's a biggie of a hurdle.