Thanks for your question: I'll be glad to give it a try!

You're referring to Genesis 9:20-27, which records the incident of Noah's drunkenness. Moses there tells us that after the flood, Noah began to dress grapevines and to produce wine; with the inclusion of the term "began to be a husbandman," we safely can infer that fermentation did not occur before the global flood. Noah, therefore, discovered a new use for grapes following this cataclysmic act of God's judgment and mercy.

Earlier in Genesis and indeed in the New Testament, Noah is commended as one who, amid a world of wickedness, found grace in God's sight. Because of God's grace, Noah was declared a righteous man and lived a Godly life. But Noah nonetheless sinned after the flood when he was intemperate in the use of one of God's good gifts, wine. (This brief answer is not the place in which to explore the question of the use of alchoholic beverages by Christians, but suffice it to say Christians have the liberty to enjoy the fruit of the vine provided they do not 1) become intoxicated, 2) violate their own consciences before the Lord or 3) scandalize others by their use of alcohol).

Noah's drunkenness was so flagrant and base that it somehow led to his nakedness. Instead of covering his father's shame, however, Ham "looked on" his father and even told his brothers about the occurrence. The Scriptures do not elaborate, thus we must remain silent about the precise nature of what took place that day. We rightly may infer that Ham's sin was in failing to honor his father and in verbally ridiculing an elder/parent/fellow sinner (cf. James 2:13).

Noah awoke and came to know that two of his sons honored him while one son, Ham, dishonored him: therefore he pronounced a curse on Ham's son Canaan. You asked about the curse of Canaan in particular; again, the Scriptures say only that he would be a "servant of servants" to his brothers Shem and Japeth and to the LORD God of Shem. Some interpreters have offered the indelicate and misguided suggestion that this curse resulted in the African peoples' enslavement to various owners in past centuries; we have no biblical reason at all to believe this unfounded suggestion.

Through clear-minded interpretation, we instead should see that by cursing Canaan rather than Ham himself, God was emphasizing the effects that the father's sins would have on his descendants. We also should understand that while the Canaanites sometimes flourished in military might, they were not the chosen of the Lord; nor did they endure as a great world power. What is more, true believers descend spiritually from Shem, not from Canaan: and to be cut off from the true, believing people of God is to be cursed indeed.

Thanks again for your thought-provoking question!