Three reasons the phrase ‘new world’ should never be used

Image: lucasgeorgewendt / Pixabay

It’s language I’ve used without much thought as the global craft distilling industry has blossomed. But has it ever been appropriate to describe the cohort of whisky makers outside of Scotland, Ireland, the US and Japan as ‘new world’ producers? Here are three reasons why we should stop using the phrase.

South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Finland, France, Germany, England, China, Argentina. In recent years, all these countries and many more have joined the vibrant world of whisky distilling. Some can measure their production history by the decade. Others might still be waiting for their spirit to come of age. Regardless, they each – and many more besides – have a far shorter whisky distilling heritage than the so-called ‘big four’: Scotland, Ireland, the US and Japan. Here the narrative stretches back centuries. And there are often weighty reputations carried with it. There’s still a lingering attitude that somehow these whiskies are ‘better’ because of it. This, of course, isn’t strictly true. The styles are different – but no better or worse.

Despite this, it’s without doubt a thrilling time to be a whisky drinker as new makers from diverse geographies source, ferment, distil and mature on their own terms. Some broadly follow existing technical files – for example, the rules for single malt Scotch can be taken on board to inform a new set-up. But every creator adds a distinct sense of place to the global tapestry of whisky making. It is remarkable to see. In a relatively short time, less than a generation in most cases, a global whisky phenomenon has taken hold.

The problem isn’t at all that these distillers exist. Far from it. I believe they add much-needed perspectives to a category that is often seen as stale. From innovative production techniques to boldness when it comes to flavour, these voices are needed in the dialogue. World whisky is welcome. The issue is how we have come to lump them together as ‘new world’ producers – and, of course, the label itself. After much musing, here are three reasons why the phrases ‘new world’ and ‘old world’ have long outstayed their welcome.

1: They’re colonial, Columbus-era terms

The phases ‘old world’ and ‘new world’ were coined around 1493. The ‘old world’ literally refers to the parts of the globe known about or mapped by Europeans prior to Christopher Columbus and his ‘voyages’ to the Americas. The western hemisphere unknown to the colonisers – a convenient and widely used framing that totally erases the indigenous peoples who very much knew these lands as their home.

I’m not a historian, but I certainly know that the tales we’re told as children of the brave, swashbuckling explorer Columbus are profoundly whitewashed and untrue. He and his men murdered, enslaved, and tortured native people across the Americas. It’s widely reported that Harvard biographer Samuel Eliot Morison, generally considered to be pretty positive about Columbus, wrote that policies written by Columbus resulted in “complete genocide.” This is not an era we should be giving any validity to. Especially when the painful legacies of this period, and colonialism more broadly, are still acutely felt today.

2: Geographically, it makes zero sense

As outlined above, ‘old world’ and ‘new world’ are phrases that refer to very specific regions. The ‘new world’ is essentially the Americas, the ‘old world’ everywhere else. This doesn’t align at all with what we mean when we refer to this new wave of geographically diverse whisky distillers. 

It also makes little sense to conflate whisky and wine terms – when it comes to this topic, and beyond. A feature of so-called ‘old world’ wines was once a lower ABV. This is now shifting due to climate change and production methods, but is stylistically often held to be true. But if a whisky consumer from a wine background expects the same from a ‘old world’ whisky, for example a single malt Scotch, they may well be disappointed when it turns out to be a booming 61% ABV cask strength bottling.  

Our aim should always be to communicate as clearly as possible. Using ‘old world’ and ‘new world’ to describe whisky just doesn’t achieve that.

3: It suggests a non-existent homogeneity 

Lumping a whole load of producers under one label, however short-hand, runs the risk of implying similarities where there are none. Whether it’s a cultural relationship with alcohol or distilling, the longevity of the distillation, the wider food and drink culture, the philosophies of the makers, every market, and indeed every maker, is different. 

There will certainly be times when it’s useful to refer to the global distilling revolution. There is a need to talk with brevity about this emerging group of fascinating, distinct and dynamic makers. But using the phrase ‘new world’ is inaccurate and ineffective.

So what should we say instead?

Language evolves – which, as a writer, is a hugely thrilling thing. And as cultures and communities learn from each other, it becomes clear over time that certain words and phrases that were once acceptable now uphold archaic or even painful notions or practices. We can all think of examples of this. I believe ‘old world’ and ‘new world’ are two of them.

As outlined in the introduction, I, up until very recently, have used this language. It’s become ingrained, not just in wine but beyond too. When thinking about what language might be appropriate to use instead, a truth applicable to much in writing came to mind.

Just say exactly what you mean.

If you mean ‘global craft distillers’, say that. If you’re focusing on Asian whiskies outside of Japan, then use that language. Same for Scandinavian whiskies, or Chinese whiskies. Or just ‘geographically diverse’ whiskies. Some people I’ve chatted with this month like ‘new wave distillers’. Just make it clear what you mean and consider the implications of language used. Because the phrase ‘new world’ whisky has never made sense.