hckrnws

Georgian cuisine and drinking is little known in the west but it's really, really good.

It's a pity the country has been democratically backsliding for a while, which has limited their hopes of tighter integration with the EU.

As long as France is in EU no other country on earth can import good wine. Cheap - probably, heavily controlled and in many cases partially owned by French or in some rare cases other European companies (like in Chilean or Argentinian cases). This market is rather hardcore and kinda monopolized in EU. Go ask anyone who knows wine market or works at a Georgian (or any ex-Soviet restaurant). Georgian wine enjoyed this kind of monopoly in USSR so no surprise here. During that time wine from Moldova wine was an affordable great quality underdog.

That makes no sense at all. There are plenty of other wine countries already in the EU. While France keeps strong on regional designations and standards, there is no one blocking wine imports except where they violate quality standards (think Californian wines full of pesticides not allowed in the EU). Every big French supermarket has Georgian wines alongside Portuguese, Croatian, ...

Well, here in BG it is hard to find French wine. There's plenty of Italian, Spanish, Chilean and Argentinian wine.

And also a healthy percent of local Bulgarian wine.

What are you talking about, there are multiple wine-producing regions in the EU, and there is absolutely no problem finding Spanish, Italian or even German wine in any EU country. Even Georgian wines can be found, if you know what to look for

At least in France it's quite complicated to find wine from elsewhere unless you go to wine retailers.

it's true but basically they don't sell them because people wouldn't buy them

Have you considered the outside chance that might be due to French nationalistic pride and wine snobbery, instead of legal chicanery?

There are a lot of Georgian wines in EU. Especially the recently popular orange wines(white wine made like red wine).

I recently tried an orange wine from a very good maker in Austria, with excellent whites and reds. I don't like the orange wine though, not my taste. I wonder why it is so popular.

I like it because it differs a lot from whites and reds and allows to get a different perspective on how wine can taste. While the difference within whites and within reds can be huge, the orange wine tastes like something completely alien, yet it can be very tasty.

Every orange wine is different, so one is not representative.

For example I like the funky, wild ones.

But besides the taste, one thing people tend to like about those wines, although it's not reserved to orange wines, is the natural manufacturing process that for example also often means less or even no added sulfites. For example my wife can't drink wine with a lots of sulfites, she gets stuffed nose immediately and a headache later. While I'm not that sensitive, even I can feel it's easier to process for my body.

I thought that's called "hangover" and you just need to drink more when that happens.

I don't really understand your point here. Sure France is overly protective about their wine, like every country tries to protect their flagship industry. And inside the EU there are many other wine-producing countries who want to protect their producers too.

But I can buy Georgian wine in a few shops and restaurants here, even those made in kvevri. I can buy small-batch Serbian (Serbia is not in the EU either) orange wine too. It's hard to import into the EU? I'm sure it is, the rules are very strict, but it's doable.

I wouldn't call it democratic backsliding. I think it's more rightly interpreted as a soft coup by Russia.

It's not polite to deny a country the agency to backslide on their own.

The corrupt class is, of course, following the oppression guide, so graciously provided and field-tested by their northern neighbour, rather diligently.

It would be unwise to overstate their (elite's) autonomy, considering economical and cultural ties on all levels, though.

Yes, but I don't think they quite did. It's pretty obvious that Russians were operating almost openly, beating people up, seizing people etc.

So I can't view it as purely Georgian backsliding.

I love Sakartvelo, but its ottoman/turkish food meets slavic food.. I can't think of a single dish (khachapuri/khinkali/etc).. that is from Georgia, that also doesnt exist in its neighboring countries in the middle east under a different name, russia/ukraine, and the balkans. Dont tell them that though, they don't like it! Its a total crossroads of a country

To be fair, this is true of all the Middle East. Döner, baklava kunefe, coffee, börek, etc. But the combination of common elements is still delicious, and every region has their own unique opinions about what makes a dish “correct”. I would easily believe the balkans (or any costly neighboring countries) are the same.

agreed, food doesn't belong to anyone

Yes, that's why it's great. They have the best of everything around and have imo perfected it. It's difficult to think of certain foods that are actually unique to any "country", tbh.

Stalin is said to have gifted a large amount of Georgian brandy to Churchill at Yalta, which made Churchill more pliable during the proceedings. Until now, this is all I knew about Georgian food and drink.

Seconding all of this. The food is truly fantastic, and the Georgian people are awesome, but the way they've let Putin slide in to just the right places is holding back the country.

I've never been so invested in a puppet show as the puppet theater in Tblisi.

I doubt they will benefit from that integration much. But I'm pretty sure the way there will hurt. Georgia's economy is tied to Russia at the moment, and as you said Westerners are not exactly lining up to travel to Georgia and order its wine (Russians are).

The narrative "people want EU (aka freedom and democracy), but bad dictators won't let them" is a populist one. And EU has been using it like carrot and stick to steer Georgia away from Russia, disregarding the cost of it for Georgia. That time when EU declared Georgian elections illegitimate (with no actual basis provided) to me was a violation of Georgia's sovereignty.

Elections in Georgia are very competitive. I've heard that government was slowly putting pressure on media, but I don't remember anything major. Georgia could be the most democratic of ex-USSR except Baltics today.

Let me guess, you think that Ukrainians also really want to be part of Russia and that they are just being manipulated by Westerners and that true Ukrainians wanna be part of Russian Empire? And that Russians are just liberating them.

A key difference is that Ukraine has land borders with the EU, with significant potential for trade, while Georgia lacks land borders with the EU which limits the potential in harnessing the single market.

That's not a key difference though, that's the same situation Greece was from 1981 until 2007 when Bulgaria and Romania joined, and Ireland, Cyprus and Malta are still in this situation (unlikely to change). And again similar to Greece and Ireland Georgia has access to sea ports, and Bulgaria and Romanian ports are not far away.

Not sure where you got that. Sounds like trying to use tropes from a superficial Hollywood action movie in real life, not my thing.

I think that a Ukrainian in his sane mind would want to look at options he's dealt and pick the one that leads to most safety and prosperity to him and his family. At the same time the government ideologues are trying to indoctrinate him with nationalism to sacrifice it all for their goals. More or less the same for an average Russian in his sane mind.

I personally believe that 2014 (and not complying with Minsk 2) has set Ukraine on course that's much worse for the safety and prosperity of an average citizen (albeit better for the nationalist ideologues). Complying with Minsk 2 would give Russia a lot of control over Ukraine (pro-Russian East gets autonomy, but gets to vote on national elections), which would be bad for nationalists who are afraid (and rightfully so) of Ukraine's young statehood sink into oblivion. But would be alright for a citizen: no dramatic change, you keep gradually improving your life, no war, you don't die for nothing.

Do you think that it is meaningful to think about things being good or evil in a manner that is separate from what is "safe" or "prosperous"? If someone points a gun at you and demands all your money, the safe thing is to give it to them. Does that mean it's a good outcome for all?

It is productive to think about the world in terms of good and evil. But if you really engage with more complex events in an intellectually honest way, you will always find that they cannot be easily mapped onto the poles of geopolitical conflicts, as you would like them to be, if I am interpreting the thrust of your question correctly.

If someone points a gun at you, if the threat seems credible, and if you are defenseless against it, and if you would rather be shot than hand over your wallet, then I can only interpret that as false pride, but not as rational behavior and certainly not as ethical behavior. This is all the more true if you are not making this decision for yourself alone.

It is not heroic to die because you did not want to give in out of personal pride, national consciousness, or other false ideals. It is heroic to accept a loss of face in such a difficult situation in order to avert or minimize harm to yourself and others.

I do believe that the discussion of good and evil is a meaningful one, but it's nuanced and we must be extremely careful with definitions and not to confuse ethics debate with irrational emotions.

If someone points a gun at me, I give the money. If life is a strategy game, then this is the moment where you need to sacrifice a piece in order for the game to even continue. And money is usually a pawn in the big picture of life. I may feel it's unfair or that my ego/honor is hurt, but I'd work though that with my therapist, analyze it philosophically and decide what to do next instead of responding emotionally.

I personally don't value nationalist sentiment. From a humanist perspective, associating yourself with one specific nation and making it your goal to serve the elites who actually control it is unjustifiable. There are things I'd consider good and evil, but they're much more universal and not tied to one's birthplace, taste or mood. Education, progress, science are good to me. So if something damages these, I may call it evil.

Ukraine is not one of these though, it is a conflict where principals are fighting for selfish interests, while working their propaganda machines very hard to convince us that their goals are actually universal and humanistic, to harvest us as a resource. Depending on which bucket you ate your slop from, you get one bias or another. As an average citizen, you should not fool yourself thinking that you're one with something great that you must sacrifice yourself for it, and don't full yourself thinking you're serving some great good.

> I think that a Ukrainian in his sane mind would want to look at options he's dealt and pick the one that leads to most safety and prosperity to him and his family.

They have done this back in 2010's and decided that EU is the safe and prosperous future they want. In response, Russian mass murderers invaded and started to kill them. That is indeed a great ad for safety and prosperity inside the Russian world: you will be miserable and we will kill you whenever we feel like it.

Stop apologising pure evil.

[flagged]

There was no coup in Ukraine in 2014. It's one of those immediately revealing things like height of the chimneys in Auschwitz; just barely mention them and we all immediately know who you are.

Sure. And you keep babbling and restating your point instead of proving it because you've got an overwhelming proof, you're just too polite to share it with us.

There's nothing to prove; by definition, elections != coup.

Is this trolling by stupidity? You are irredeemable. I wasn't talking about elections, I meant everything before it that caused premature elections in 2014.

Was there something major that happened in 2013-2014 involving violence that interrupted the term of elected, legitimate president Yanukovich? Can you recall?

  > Was there something major that happened in 2013-2014 involving violence that interrupted the term of elected, legitimate president Yanukovich?

This is the polar opposite of illegal seizure of power by a small group of people, or a coup.

Are there any key details you're leaving out? Is there a chance you creatively picked what to leave out in a way that serves the view you're sympathetic to?

No.

> The society was split about this idea

Yes, this is how democracy works. Then a decision is made and the society rolls with it. See the UK for example: a decision was made to leave the EU, they left, it cost them a lot of money and goodwill, but it works, worse than being in the EU but works. The EU did not invade, did not bomb their cities, did not rape their women and did not steal their children. And crucially the EU did not blame the citizens of the UK exercising their free will for mass murdering them.

Now look at the sad Russia you are worshipping.

I agree about democracy. What I was referring to is that part of the society didn't roll with the legitimate leader's decision not to align with EU in 2013. And it was undemocratic.

I stressed that it was split, and the democratic thing to do would be to wait another year until the next election, where everyone will be given equal opportunity to express their choice and determine what's the next thing we're rolling with. But we'll never know what they'd choose because some chose to protest, and then continue doing so when it git violent. Give me one reason why Maidan organizers couldn't go home in 2013 and just vote a year later.

Maybe there could have been a referendum on EU course. But we'll never know, since neither Yanukovich nor pro-EU leaders have conducted one.

> What I was referring to is that part of the society didn't roll with the legitimate leader's decision not to align with EU in 2013. And it was undemocratic.

So in a separate thread you are demanding a bit of history and here you are likely not mentioning a bit of history for a reason. Anyway. The protests have not been 'undemocratic'. And the protesters did not decide to be murdered by snipers.

> But we'll never know what they'd choose because some chose to protest, and then continue doing so when it git violent.

Ah yes. Who exactly 'got violent'? Who authorised the decision to shoot to kill?

> Maybe there could have been a referendum on EU course.

Possibly, but let's not hold our breath whether the mass murderers in Moscow would respect the outcome if it didn't suit them.

[flagged]

For some reason, non-trivial amount of people prefer living in freedom instead of oppression, heck even risk their lives to have a better future for themselves and their children. russia offers none of that even to core russians, its a neonazi oligarch mafia state that treats its own citizens like disposable garbage, the minorities in far regions even much worse. I've grown up during communism in one of their subjugated vasal states, and we were basically in concentration camp - no movement outside the borders even within eastern bloc unless approved by regime, no freedom of thought or expression, any dissent was crushed brutally. Their troops in our country were around 5% of our population by numbers just to make sure there are no funky freedom ideas happening.

If you ever cared about history you can trivially find absolutely horrible things russians/soviets (always coming from moscow which always sets the tone) did consistently to Ukraine. If you ever care about facts you could trivially check how russian oppressors behave on conquered ukrainian territories these days - mass executions of civilians, torture chambers in every second home, old grannies shot in the back of their head from point blank range with hands tied behind their backs, lying in mass graves - the stories around 2023when Ukraine managed to free up some territory were pretty consistent.

So no, you are incorrect, if you ever cared about the topic you would know it pretty well. Or you know it and try to make some soft influence on the topic. Unfortunately russia is such a horrible actor these days, at this point universally and globally despised so that it became an insult to be called russian or associated with it in most places around the world. Their own doing, and when facing ridiculous defeat and humiliation they just double down in that clown theatre.

The fact that most russians still support invasion and random independent polls end up with consistent strong support for war and all ridiculous russian claims, leaves practically no hope for their future. Cancer of the humanity at this point, its easier to have more respect for North Korea regime.

It's not the EU, OSCE reports the same.

> Elections in Georgia are very competitive. I've heard that government was slowly putting pressure on media, but I don't remember anything major.

The OCSE report on the 2024 election was that they were significantly biased[0]

> Reports of pressure on voters, particularly on public sector employees, remained widespread in the campaign. This, coupled with extensive tracking of voters on election day, raised concerns about the ability of some voters to cast their vote without fear of retribution. The legal framework provides an adequate basis for democratic elections, but recent frequent amendments marked a step backwards, raising concerns over its potential use for political gain. Preparations for the elections were well-administered, including extensive voter education on the use of new voting technologies. A significant imbalance in financial resources and advantage of incumbency contributed to an already uneven playing field. The polarized media environment and instrumentalization of private outlets for political propaganda affected impartial news coverage, hindering voters’ ability to make an informed choice. Effectiveness of campaign finance oversight was undermined by limited enforcement, and concerns over the impartiality and political instrumentalization of the oversight body.

And in 2025, OSCE again complained about the democratic limitations to protest[1]

> “Peaceful protesters in Georgia continue to be detained, sentenced, and fined for exercising their rights. The authorities have an obligation to implement their OSCE human rights commitments and international obligations, including respect for the right to peaceful assembly”, said Maria Telalian, ODIHR Director. “I would like to urge once again the Georgian authorities to ensure that civil society and human rights defenders are not targeted and that their voices are heard, as their work is crucial in fostering a vibrant democratic society.”

We can agree this is still a western-oriented view, but I think it's pretty undisputable that Georgia in 2026 is a less open society than Georgia in 2016.

[0] https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/1/6/584...

[1] https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/598675

I don't like using "western-oriented" as synonym for free/democratic/good, but otherwise I agree it's gotten worse. Your use of the word "backsliding", I think, was appropriate.

Are we talking about EU spokesperson calling Georgian elections illegitimate? If so, I believe your quotes show that there's no basis for that claim. The OSCE specifically says that, despite a bunch of concerns, Georgia's legal framework is "adequate". To me, that reads as "it passes the bar".

> The narrative "people want EU (aka freedom and democracy), but bad dictators won't let them" is a populist one.

Former eastern block members that are currently in the EU beg to differ.

It's no accident that there's such a developmental gap between those of the former communist states which turned to the west vs those who remained in Russia's sphere of influence.

You can't meaningfully prosper with Russia.

[dead]

[flagged]

> Maybe the reason is not that EU magically turns everything it touches into gold (while Russian orcs turn it to crap, obviously), but that EU is carefully choosing who joins and doesn't let the bad prospects in?

The EU gives certain conditions and it's up to the elites in a given country to meet them, as that necessarily means reining in corruption - to an extent. Fortunately for me, the ones in my mine decided that this is the best course of action and we all benefited.

Also when you look at the examples of Greece or Orban's Hungary, occasionally a member will go off the rails. But again, it's the elites that let this happen.

Meanwhile corruption is an inherent feature of the Russian system, which is why doing business with them is broadly speaking a bad idea. Also it's a rather small economy producing largely low value products despite vast natural resources - there's no benefit in associating with them in this day and age. The cheap gas is not worth it.

> Also it's a rather small economy producing largely low value products despite vast natural resources - there's no benefit in associating with them in this day and age. The cheap gas is not worth it.

Why it's not worth it? I don't see how the quote would imply it. I don't see why they wouldn't encourage Russia to join EU too given what you wrote. In the worst case you'll get one more Hungary.

And if Russia is corrupt, you can still deal with them if you're ruled by foreign courts. Russia did comply with European Court of Human Rights IIRC right until the invasion. Something as minor as a politically partial court decision in Russia could be appealed in ECHR and Russia would pay a compensation to its citizen. If you're a business, I'm pretty sure you'll find a way to defend your interests in pre-2022 Russia.

EU enlargement largely paused after Bulgaria and Romania because there was a sense that those countries had been let in too early before they had dealt with their corruption issues. Most of the Balkans haven’t made much progress on their accession for this reason.

There has also traditionally been hesitation to let in countries with active border disputes since Cyprus has been a geopolitical headache, but that kind of went out the window with the invasion.

Everyone that wanted in, got in. And got better living standards than those that didn't want in.

Just having access to the european free market would do that, without considering the money that pours in from the eu to developing countries.

When Ukraine wins the war and joins, you'll see how much better they get, too.

If it's that simple, why doesn't everyone "want in" and get those precious living standards? There must be a lot of stupid governments if they literally refuse free stuff. Or your statement is naive and overly simplistic. Guess which of the two is more likely?

Does Georgia "want in"? I'm not so sure what that means. The population has mixed feelings about it, as I understand from friends there. The current government who represents them doesn't want in.

> Just having access to the european free market

Again, do you think this just offers you free stuff? A marked doesn't just offer you "access", it assigns you a role you're going to be playing in it. And some roles are worse than the others, even if the marked is "good".

> There must be a lot of stupid governments if they literally refuse free stuff.

Yes? Why does that surprise you? Short-sighted politicians who prioritise immediate personal gain over long-term prosperity for their people exist everywhere.

That, and Russian interference.

> were already connected historically with logistics and culture > Georgia, on the other hand, is surrounded by non-EU countries > Georgia is super patriarchal and conservative

Greece at the time they entered had no land connection to the rest of EU, completely different language and alphabet etc., and also was "super patriarchal and conservative" FWIW.

But of course you have no interest in factual discourse, you are only here to spew mass-murderer propaganda.

It's terrible that people think like that, especially in Georgia where they are still not tied to the debt fueled pyramid scheme that is the EU.

They still think of Europe as how it was 20 years+ ago, they always only look at the surface and never if the whole concept really works out long term.

Russia is a tiny tiny economy built on corruption. Their whole economy is about selling energy. and right now their economy is failing. They're exporting less and less and less. They even have to import fuel because they can't produce enough for their own economy.

"They still think of Europe as how it was 20 years+ ago, they always only look at the surface and never if the whole concept really works out long term."

Poland today seems in a way better spot than in was 20 years ago, so it seems it worked out for them. Likewise all the other eastern EU members where I travelled around. As soon as I left EU territory, things looked way worse.

And the alternative is ... Russia? A corrupt dictatorship whose economy is kept alive with government war spending?

Hi, fellow glavset worker! How's the weather in St. Petersburg today?

[flagged]

I've been to Georgia 10 years ago and there were a lot of tourists from Germany and France. Both the buses with organized trips for retired people and youngsters renting AirBnbs for cheap.

The problem we faced was with the inconsistency in price/quality in restaurants and services. Some places are really cheap - a huge dinner for two in a "I want this, this and this and two bottles of wine" manner costed 25EUR, while a 15 minute transfer could cost 50EUR. This inconsistency is something that leaves a bad aftertaste for many tourists, who would otherwise want to go there again and again to enjoy the beautiful nature, food, wine. And the tap water is literally Evian. That was in Kutaisi.

If it wasn't for the sudden grab of power fueled by Russian money and the influx of people fleeing from Russia because of war, give Georgia another 10-20 years, and the living standards would rise dramatically. Similar to how it happened in early 2000s.

What did the ratio of European tourists to Russian look like?

Not sure what grab of power you're referring to.

The inflow of Russians was a boost for Georgia. These are whole IT companies that moved with workers, high-paying jobs and taxes. Many of pro-Western views and European expectations of living standards (because they're from Moscow and St. Petersburg). Check specialty cafes in Tbilisi today and see when they opened. These are the white people with guilt syndrome who will sign up to Georgian language classes to show respect to the local culture. Hell, I'm sure you can see a change in people's average views on LGBT rights since 2022, since Georgia is known to be quite patriarchal homophobic.

There were not a whole lot of Russian tourists 10 years ago because the memories from Russian invasion of 2008 were still fresh.

I'm not saying that inflow of Russians is particularly bad, it just raised the prices of everything very significantly, and together with the pro-Russian government and reversal in pro-European development, the European tourist influx is stagnant at best.

Oh sure, I can believe that. It still seems to me like a sign of Georgia's economy strengthening. Many people with buying capabilities which actually settle, not just come occasionally for cheap stuff. (Looking at the thread's context broadly) plus one for closer ties with Russia.

Oh, is the CIA at it again? brainwashing people to hate the good old Ruzzian empire and the tzar? If only those Georgians could travel to Ruzzia and Europe and make their own minds if they want to be like Ukraine and Belarus that sucked on Putin or they want to be like Poland or Romania ... /sarcasm

No idea dude why all this KGB attempts to pretend that Ruzzia is some kind of big nice brother to Georgia after they fucking invaded them and grabbed their lands , the big brother is a bit violent if he drinks too much and unfortunately he is always drunk on power and dreams of making the empire great again ?

Maybe it’s Baader-Meinhof but this wine is also a primary plot point in currently airing Apple TV+ adaptation of Drops of God. What are the odds?

Wine is produced in monasteries, beer also. So => is ingrained in Christian culture. The same way marijuana is part of the Hindu culture. Am I right?

While that may be true, Christianity is only around 2k years old, while Goergian wine culture has existed for around 8k years.

They make some good brandy too!

Crazy to think that’s roughly around when white people started becoming… white.

It was basically all dark skinned people on the planet before then.

There's a reason they call them Caucasian.

No, there isn't. Caucasus is a place that exists now, and people who live there now have more basis to be called that. Some of them are White, some aren't. There's many ethnicities there, but they have a ton of cultural things on common. In the Russian-speaking parts of the world "Caucasian" refers to those cultural features, just like you may use the words "Asian" or "European".

You can only use Caucasian as white if you're completely uneducated about geography and unaware of life outside of US.

In Florida it wouldn’t be confusing to refer to someone from Hawaii as “Hawaiian,” but in Hawaii it means something much more specific about ancestry, and it’s considered rude and even offensive to misuse it.

In NYC they pronounce Oregon as “Ore-gone,” even though Oregonians pronounce it “Ore-gun.” In Portland, mispronunciation marks you as an ignorant outsider.

Every place has idiosyncratic misuses of terms that come from somewhere else. Of course you are correct about “Caucasian,” but wherever you are from, I’m sure you misuse some other term.

Labeling it as uneducated and unaware is a form of snobbery that you’re unlikely to be entitled to. None of us are.

Fair point, I agree I made it too arrogant.

We all have things we misuse, but I think those things may characterize us sometimes. For example, in Russian we often misuse the word Hindu to mean Indian. It may mean that the person is uneducated and maybe even unaware of the difference. A couple of my friends who've been to India or are nerds about other cultures, don't misuse the word, some even go around ranting about it.

I personally feel that the way Americans use "Caucasian" is a more blatant misuse than others, and maybe that's what made me react that way. Like what is exact idea one has to miss and be unaware of to use "Caucasian" for "white"? What adds to it is that, if I understand correctly, using "Caucasian" instead of "white" in English makes you sound more official and important. I guess I can see that it's being used due to legal tradition and that's hard to change.

Race is a tricky topic in the US due to history. The term is an 18th century creation of German academia, but somehow got adopted in the late 19th c in the US, presumably because racial restrictions were written into law and so fancy terminology was adopted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

From that Wikipedia article I learned it is used in Australia too, another place where an immigrant white majority wrote their dominance into law.

WRT to “Hindu” for south Asians — that’s amazing to me, I’d be boggled to hear someone say that.

Or if you're a 19th century German phrenologist.

You got it the opposite way. basically some pseudoscientist thought that the schools of people from the Caucasus had the most beautiful skulls when they were dead. and since he was white he thought that this must be where all white people are coming from. So he claimed that white people are Caucasian. Even if this is of course not true that most Anglo-Saxon people are coming from the Caucasian mountains.

No, Caucasian is a bogus term whose origin is in a misinterpretation of the Bible.

In the Genesis, humans were partitioned in descendants of Japheth, Ham and Shem, hence terms like Hamites and Semites.

However the meaning of this partition was completely other than its naive interpretation that was common during Medieval times and until recently.

This partition had absolutely nothing to do with race or with the languages spoken by people, which were pretty much irrelevant in the Antiquity. The partition was based purely on political dependence.

The descendants of Ham were the people politically dependent on Egypt and the descendants of Shem were the people dependent on Assyro-Babylonia.

An example of people closely related and who spoke a very similar language, but who were divided based on political allegiance is that the Phoenicians were counted as descendants of Ham, because they belonged to Egypt, while Hebrews were counted as descendants of Shem, because they belonged to Assyro-Babylonia.

Japheth refers to Caucasus and the descendants of Japheth were the people from Anatolia, where Indo-European kingdoms, like that of the Hittites, were dominant.

During Medieval times, this grouping of people from the Bible was completely misunderstood and it was believed that it refers to race, so it was believed that "descendants of Ham" refers to Africans and "descendants of Japheth", i.e. Caucasians, refers to "white" Europeans, hence the stupid name used in America of "Caucasian".

[dead]

As an Armenian, I think this is bullshit, maybe.

They're very proud of it too, but having spent time in Tbilisi (strong recommend!), there's a very simple reason you can buy French and Australian wine at your local shop, but nobody has bothered to make sure there's a good selection of Georgian wine there.

what _is_ that reason, out of curiosity?

It doesn't match the tastes of non-Georgian consumers, beyond being a (usually short-lived) curiosity

Germany and especially Austria produce some rather poor reds but have carved out a niche for Riesling and Gewürtztraminer. Is there a similar niche for Georgian wine?

I'm not who you asked, but the niche for Georgian wine is orange wine, which is white wine left to sit on the grape skins for a couple days, so it pulls more tannins. It's not exclusive to them alone, but the more distinct niche is orange wine aged in clay pots that gives it a distinct earthiness. If you appreciate understanding food anthropology, this is more similar to how wine was produced in ancient times, as opposed to a cabernet or modern varieties aged in oak or stainless steel.

You can usually find maybe one variety of orange wine in the US at larger wine stores with a substantial international selection.

You can also find orange (or skin contact) wine in the US at smaller boutique natural wine shops, which are becoming more common. Orange wines are cultivated in Sonoma and other wine regions in the US as well.

Totally off-topic but there are also white wines made with red grapes with white flesh by quickly separating the skins which is kind of the opposite.

Georgia makes wine in its traditional style or 'european' style. Traditional style is where the crushed grapes including branches is stored in clay pots (called Qvevri) for fermentation and aging. This means Georgian wines often have a different colour and can be cloudy.

European is the style of how most wine is made in Europe

The most famous style is Saperavi which is a Red wine.

> Germany and especially Austria produce some rather poor reds but have carved out a niche for Riesling and Gewürtztraminer.

You're missing out on some rather nice German reds. You can definitely find some excellent Spätburgunders out there.

“Rather poor reds”. Um what? Germany and Austria produce a lot of excellent wine, red and white.

Austrian reds are some of my favourites.

In London, Georgian orange wines are very popular and that seems to be what most people who are cursorily into wine would know them for here.

Sorry, I have to heartily disagree. There may be a few examples of good Austrian and German reds out there, but your chances of getting thin, acidic swill from a random bottle is way higher than with French or Californian reds.

(See also: East Coast US wines.)