A Blog About Making Culture
diamonds are for never
January 20, 2003
So, we all know that diamonds are intrinsically worthless stones whose popularity and value are a recent creation, the result of a concerted marketing efffort by a monopolist cartel whose control on its market makes Microsoft look like amateurs.
And even if one doesn't disagree with the morality of a company that blithely funded the South African economy during the embargo-strained apartheid years, the fact that fifteen percent of the diamonds on the U.S. market are conflict diamonds that either helped fund, prolong, or motivate violence in Africa ought to give anyone pause when buying into the hype that's been generated over a stone that's far from the rarest gem on earth. Even diamond advocates concede that, once they've been cut, it's virtually impossible to tell stones that are from areas of conflict apart from ones that were legitimately mined, making it unlikely that stores selling cut stones can have any way of guaranteeing that their diamonds didn't originate in areas of conflict.
But you might not be convinced by all of that, so I'll give you another reason to avoid them: The people selling them are fucking pigs. They're heavily invested in selling a world where men are insensitive, thick-headed incompetents transparently trying to dupe women who are vain, superficial, materialistic fools. I typically tend to be on the "eh, it's just a joke" side of things, but the sheer repetitive insistence of the cynical stereotypes in diamond advertising is astonishing.
I took a couple of pictures around town. The taglines range from creepy to blatantly misogynist. "Reduce the entire English language to three syllables. I love you." I suppose that's trying to be romantic, but if your significant other finds that their expressions of love are only prompted by being handed a rock, it seems that one of the 4 Cs you might want to worry about is "communication".
There are some that are just pathetic. "Get ready to hear one more tearful acceptance speech." "Never have to plagiarize another poem as long as you live." Who are these guys? Who does this appeal to? What hapless, undemonstrative loser identifies with stealing poetry as a subsititute for romance? Who finds the effort of copying someone else's sentiments so strenuous that he'd rather spend ten percent of his annual income on a pair of earrings?
Any one of these ads might be amusing, even charming, on its own. But there are dozens of them, all based on these same idiotic, dysfunctional archtypes. "Carve the turkey any way you damn well please." Think about the number of assumptions there. A shrill harpie of a wife, so overbearing that she's prone to criticizing her husband's turkey carving, yet so inept that she can't carve the turkey herself because it's a man's job. A henpecked, spineless cad of a husband, so hapless that he accepts her orders to portion the poultry but then holds onto the resentment of her criticisms of his effort. A relationship so broken and twisted that his purchase of a blood-tainted rock from a monopolist cartel would appease her superficiality enough to get her to relent from her sniping at his performance of a trivial act. And this seems like a bargain because this man is so emotionally worthless that he couldn't just say, "Hey, if you want me to carve the turkey, you should probably be less critical of how I do it."
Any guys who use that line can feel free to give me ten percent of their yearly income. Hell, I'll settle for five percent, and send the rest to the Angolans to buy weapons.
I know what you're thinking. "It's not that bad." It's just a joke, and I'm taking it too seriously. But how can you look at a list on the industry's own marketing website and see "Of course there's a return on your investment. We just can't print it here." and not be aware that they're selling, along with war and market dominance, dysfunction. Want your materialistic, easily-misled wife to stop being such a frigid bitch? Buy her a diamond! Did your husband decide to increase your consumer debt in order to buy you a pair of earrings that were mined at gunpoint by children in Africa? Reward him with grudging sex and a temporary cessation of your relentless nagging!
One of the few upsides to the whole ugly business is that such transparently offensive and annoying ads lend themselves to easy parody, such as the frequently-forwarded "She'll pretty much have to..." ad that makes the rounds every few months, demonstrating a wife's implicit fellatio obligation after the presentation of a diamond. (That link, needless to say, is not work-safe.) The same joke was featured in an episode of The Family Guy, as I understand it, proving the thought isn't particularly original. But the fact that the parody is that obvious, because it lies so close to the reality, is the most damning indictment of the sheer misogyny and contempt for healthy relationships that the diamond industry has based its marketing upon.
I'm sure I'll get a lot of grief from people who've given or received diamonds, arguing that the ads are cleverly playing on classic archetypes and that I have a stick up my ass, etc. But the reality is, this is a broken industry with a product whose very existence is absurd. If we look back at the efforts of the conquistadores in the Americas, and their monomaniacal focus on the pursuit of gold, even by members of the Catholic church, I think we'll have a fairly decent idea what our culture's association of romance with diamonds is going to look like to future generations.
In the meantime, don't buy their hype. If you already have a diamond, or you must continue with the dying tradition of purchasing them, don't fall for the De Beers cartel's concerted efforts to encourage the burial of diamonds with one's loved ones in order to perpetuate the artificial scarcity of the stones. I'm hoping that we see a stigmatization of diamonds, and a decrease in popularity and sales similar to the one suffered by the fur trade when the brutality of their industry was revealed. But if the moral issues aren't compelling enough, perhaps their contempt for your emotional maturity, your partner's character, and the solidity of your relationship would be enough to dissuade you.
Previously: there's no "me" in team
Next: VPR Matrix laptop
Illruminations
Why not diamonds?: anil dash - diamonds are for never read more »Just Well Mixed
"Diamonds Are For Never": Anil Dash has a great essay up on his blog about diamonds and the incredible contempt for the public that read more »anil dash's daily links
terrific summary of the diamond problem by ryan: http://www.dashes.com/anil/index.php?archives/004817.php#comments read more »Snapping Links
excellent rant: anil dash: diamonds are for never. no diamond here, no ring of any kind...the only thing I would've want would've read more »a clever sheep
Anil is not a diamond's best friend: In an excellent and lucid blog entry, Anil Dash takes on the diamond industry for its numerous sins. Not only read more »szymona.net
She'll Pretty Much Have To...: Anil Dash writes a brilliantly scathing article on diamonds. I've got to admit I've had most of those same thoughts about diamonds from time to time. Maybe it's an issue of practicality, too. At my age, It would be crazy read more »There Is No Cat
Like a rock: Anil Dash has a great rant about diamonds, DeBeers, and the relationship between blood and diamonds. I actually wrote something similar back in October (prompted by an article about Al-Qaeda getting into the diamond trade in Sierra Leone) about how whe... read more »plasticbag.org
Superfast Superfunny Extrapotent Linkfun III: Being a list of (relatively) recently-found funny and/or weird links that are too insubstantial to write anything critical or interesting read more »Diamond Blog
Diamonds are for Never: Anil Dash has quite a discussion going on at his blog about DeBeers and Diamonds.... read more »FeralBlog
a very interesting tirade against diamons: a very interesting tirade against diamonds on anil dash's site. luckily the slf told me awhile ago that all she would want would be an antique garnet ring. bonus from that article is this great deflator for all the annoying... read more »KO
Artificial Diamonds: The end of the diamond industry as we know it, and good riddance too. Wired: The New Diamond Age. Two companies in the US have perfected techniques for creating cheap artificial diamonds, virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. The story... read more »KO
Artificial Diamonds: The end of the diamond industry as we know it, and good riddance too. Wired: The New Diamond Age. Two companies in the US have perfected techniques for creating cheap artificial diamonds, virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. The story... read more »TangleBones
Anil's a genius: Wow. I always hated diamonds once I learned that they were nothing more than payment for a woman's virginity, but this is a whole handful of nails in the coffin of any diamond purchase I ever imagined. No really, go... read more »White Noise
Anil Dash: Diamonds are for never: We were talking today about the Wired article on synthetic diamonds. I've never been a big fan of the diamond industry's (aka the De Beers cartel) tactics. Anil Dash, back in January, does a pretty good job of explaining why... read more »anil dash's daily links
diamonds are for never: http://www.dashes.com/anil/index.php?archives/004817.php... read more »TwoCentsWorth.com
Synthetic (cultured) Diamonds: This month's Wired has a cover article on synthetic diamonds. I thought it was pretty interesting and I remembered seeing a PBS-NOVA program called The Diamond Deception a few years ago. After reading the Wired... read more »Full Speed
I just got the Semtember: I just got the Semtember issue of Wired in the mail a couple of days ago. She cover features a woman adorned in nothing but diamonds. The story behind this photo is called ``The New Diamond Age''. This is a... read more »Hyperion Court
Diamonds: About a month or so ago, I went looking for a nice diamond ring for my girlfriend. The more I looked at rings, the more I didn't like the whole idea of buying a diamond. The idea of a diamond... read more »Electrolicious
Left Finger: Friday I went to go get my legs waxed, and I ended up with the same friendly esthetician who'd done... read more »Electrolicious
The Rings: Today Andreas and I drove over to fetch our wedding rings David Weinstock, our jeweler and family friend. This... read more »cheesedip.com
gimme a t, gimme an a, gimme a cky!: I read in the "news" about how Britney Spears has a five-carat diamond on the engagement ring she's sporting and... read more »Daily Links
Diamonds are for Never: http://www.dashes.com/anil/2003/01/20/diamonds_are_fo... read more »Tim
Well said. Even so, I just bought my wife diamond earrings for her birthday.
I’m thinking about something along the lines of a truth campaign like the one for cigarette companies. How about it?
Seth Werkheiser
Thanks for mentioning “Not safe for work” a few lines AFTER the link! haha..
Choire
Right on, man. As you point out, in NYC we’re literally surrounded by these dowry-age relics that appeal to those cigar-smoking entry-level brokers who party at the Ginger Man in midtown. It’s grotesque, and there’s certainly not much of an upside to the diamond industry itself.
Berklee
Thanks man, I hadn’t taken a stance on this issue, now I have.
PLC
Finally something we agree upon entirely. I’ll only add that CZ is fine substitute for diamonds if you like shiny things, as is manufactured tanzanite (tanzanite is also not mined in the friendliest of manners).
Paul
When my intelligent and beautiful fiancee and I decided on an engagement ring, we explicitly chose a non-diamond ring due to the conflict diamond fiasco. That and DeBeers, which are mostly one in the same.
But did you know that diamonds weren’t considered “standard issue” for engaged women until the 1950s? DeBeers sent representatives, smartly, into public schools and ‘educated’ the idea into kids. That meant that every generation from then on would associate diamonds with love and “forever”, even though there are many many stones that will outlast diamonds.
I hate their ad campaigns, too. Targeting brainless, uncreative men. Swell - there’s certainly not enough targeted at that demographic.
denise
about ten years ago there was a fascinating 6 hour frontline series on diamonds. the debeers family is pretty evil. at the time i viewed the documentary, they couldn’t travel to the united states because of all of the warrants out for them.
the debeers were even trying to stop/regulate the production of synthetic diamonds!
also, remember the tennis bracelet? the debeers had just purchased a newly found source of russian diamonds. the problem was, the diamonds were too small, so they had to invent a way to market them.
diamond engagement rings were never a tradition. the debeers paid movie producers to start including scenes with a man on one knee proposing with a diamond ring. diamonds are the original product placement.
we are such pawns, heh.
i understand what you mean by “conflict free” diamonds, but if you know the history of debeers in south africa, there really aren’t any conflict free diamonds unless they were never owned or distributed by that family/corporation. that pretty much leaves you with novelty american diamonds found on the ground in arkansas.
Steve
The Atlantic Monthly ran a fascinating article on the history of the diamond engagement ring. It’s from 1982, so a great deal of the economic information is meaningless today (are people buying cut gemstones as an inflation hedge? Anywhere?), but it still makes for some really interesting reading.
PLC
From my (cursory) study of the DeBeers business plan during my time at business school, I would suggest that the ads are not targeted at men at all. DeBeers understands that women are the driving force behind diamond purchases and the point of the ads is to convince women that loving men buy diamonds. They know that if women believe this strongly enough, at a deeply emotional level, the men will just roll over and buy the damn ring to make her happy.
Michael Doss
I couldn’t agree more, though I haven’t seen this ad campaign out here in the LA metro area. Diamonds are big here, just like everywhere else, and when you look into it, (along with all sorts of other marriage related propaganda) it’s one of the most clever, understated, prevailant conjobs around.
Gillian
I’m getting married this year and I don’t have an engagement ring. I wish I could say this was because of the reasons mentioned above, but I can’t.
I just think the diamond engagement ring is a sexist, archaic tradition. I didn’t know women even had engagement rings until I was about 21. I thought it was something that happened in the movies. I just hadn’t noticed.
Also, I just don’t care enough about jewelry. Diamonds are just clear rocks. I don’t see why they’re more valuable than say…granite. But my string of glass beads that belonged to my great-grandmother? That’s the most valuable piece of jewelry I’ll probably ever own.
I’m not going to claim that I don’t like pretty girly things. Of course, I do. But when someone makes monthly payments on a ring, that’s a little creepy.
I also don’t want to suggest that I think I don’t attach sentimental value to big-ticket items. I know I do. When my sweetheart brought home a big, silver, shiny tv and entertainment center with picture-in-picture, a 5-disc changer, and surround sound, you know my eyes teared up as I said to myself, ‘I love this man. I love this man. I love this man….’ Yeah, it was just like the commercial.
I’m glad you also think that diamond commercials are outrageous. They’re female-chauvinistic. I’m waiting for the ad that says, ‘She’ll forget she is going to live with a man for the rest of her life.’
Laura
They have that campaign out here, in the Muni/Bart stations. Every time I look at it I thank they stars they made me queer.
Of course, queers/gays aren’t immune to crass, role-driven materialism and can often be the worst offenders, especially in certain communities in San Fran.
But I’m just glad I have the option of bypassing these archetypes completely.
Laura
“they stars” = “my lucky stars”. Don’t know where that typo came from.
Andre Torrez
Michael Doss:
There’s a lot of them out here, you just have to keep an eye out since in LA it isn’t so easy to get ads in front of people’s faces unless they’re 80 feet wide.
There’s one on the corner of Bundy and Venice that says, “Add King Daddy Stud-Muffin To Your List of Pet Names”.
ttrendel
I believe that was the most even-handed writing I’ve seen on the issue for some time. I really don’t have any personal antecdotes or experiences to share. I just thought I’d thank Anil for the best thing I’ve read in the last few weeks.
Richard Hughes
Anil,
Just read your piece on why buying a diamond is not a good idea. I’ll be the first to agree with you that DeBeers doesn’t have the best of records and that diamonds in West Africa have fueled more than a little horror. But I do believe you oversimplify the situation.
I am over 20 years in the gem business, so let’s get that out of the way right off the bat. I’ve authored a piece on blood diamonds and you can see it at:
http://www.ruby-sapphire.com/ddblooddiamonds.htm
Here’s another piece you might enjoy, speaking about gems from Burma:
http://www.ruby-sapphire.com/burmese_politics.htm
From your name, it sounds like you are of Indian extraction. If so, you probably know that the diamond industry is one of India’s biggest. That boycott you are calling for will impact far more than the 15% of conflict diamonds (in truth, it’s probably more like 5%).
I’ll bet you drive a car. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. I’d wager a lot more than 15% of your gas comes from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and other countries where the human rights records are atrocious.
As I said, things are not so simple. I appreciate your sentiments. No one wants to support human-rights abusers. Wish I had the answer, but I don’t. You see, it’s the politics, not the product, that deserve boycott.
Warmest regards, Richard Hughes
Anil
Richard had emailed me his response earlier, and I told him that his was a point of view that’s been underrepresented, so I asked him to repost his thoughts here. Thanks for taking the time, Richard.
Failsafe
I just wanted to add that although I agree with the text and abhorr DeBeers, that there is an alternative in both source and marketing for those set on purchasing a diamond.
Canadian Diamonds mined in the Northern Territory. There is one mine operating there and soon will be a second. Check out Sirius Diamonds for details.
temple
This reminds me of the speech I made in speech class at college. It was on the idiocy (I know I didn’t use that word then) of selling beer in gas stations.
Obviously there wasn’t politics involved, just common sense. If people want beer they can buy it at the grocery store. Who would need it at gas stations except if they’re going to drink it in or around their driving time. I worked at a gas station and observed many young men come in nly for beer and gas (the two top selling items at a gas station by units sold, along with cigarettes). This was nine years ago, so I think I’m missing some logical link points here)
Anyway, a good post you had. I think buying a diamond is just a part of the mix that should exist in romancing your “girl.”
You do what makes her happy. A diamond may indeed be a rip-off but few women are going to appreciate a treatise on world politics when you tell them why you didn’t want to get a diamond.
As to motives: My girlfriend likes Blue Topaz and I like seeing her face and delight when she opens up the jewelry box. Do I expect anything in return? Well, seeing her happy, I already got it. But sure, if it rests in the back of her mind that stores the “he’s such a great guy” memories than that can only help the relationship and the sex. Women and men enjoy sex more with someone they know values them - in the many ways that is expressed.
I’ve always thought the same thing about the ad taglines btw though hadn’t seem some of the sicker ones you found. I also hadn’t seen the X-rated Debeers ad. For anyone interested I’ve seen the original picture and the woman behind the shadow is Jenna Jameson.
Dan Lyke
When I saw those ads in the Bay Area I was gong to go all Billboard Liberation Front on them, things like “Just add ‘Genocial Colonialist Oppressor’ to your current pet name”, “Reduce the Entire English language to three syllables: ‘What a Dupe’”, that sort of thing. Then I saw their “Whack! Pow! Woosh! Kablam! In a tender loving sort of way” ad and I realized that any commentary I could add would go completely over the heads of their target audience.
Irony isn’t dead because there’s a lack of supply.
kfan
A-FUCKING-MEN, anil. Everytime a friend or relative gets engaged I start my broken record about how horrible the diamond industry is, and no one ever seems to give a shit.
Mr. Steen
Testify, brother!
Elisabeth
Hey Anil. Remember that time years and years ago when we went out to dinner and you were vehement about being for engagement rings and against pre-nuptial agreements? Glad to see you’ve changed your mind.
On a side note, apart from the whole diamond issue, there’s also the whole: “Look! I’m chattel!” issue that surrounds wearing an engagement ring.
George
Blue Collar Comedy tour joke: “You know what they mean when they say ‘Diamonds — render her speechless!’, they really mean ‘Diamonds — that’ll shut her up!’”
Which is funny in a sad-omg-please-let-there-be-more-C-for-communication way.
Anil
you were vehement about being for engagement rings and against pre-nuptial agreements
Now waaait a minute! I was, and still am, against pre-nups, but I don’t recall any such thing about rings. I’ve pretty much always been against them, as I recall.
It’s quite possible I was arguing for the sake of arguing, though. I’m a bit prone to such things.
temple
On a side note, apart from the whole diamond issue, there’s also the whole: “Look! I’m chattel!” issue that surrounds wearing an engagement ring.
Come on, that’s taking things too far. The woman is as proud of wearing the ring and letting others know of impending couplehood. If the woman in question does not want a ring, she should, and I’m sure does, let her boyfriend know howe she feels about engagement rings.
Jeani
“A diamond may indeed be a rip-off but few women are going to appreciate a treatise on world politics when you tell them why you didn’t want to get a diamond.”
Why would you want to marry a woman who wouldn’t take seriously your well-founded concerns regarding the diamond industry? If a person has serious ethical issues with a product and his/her partner can’t be understanding enough to at least respect that, I don’t think the relationship/marriage has much of a chance.
“On a side note, apart from the whole diamond issue, there’s also the whole: ‘Look! I’m chattel!’ issue that surrounds wearing an engagement ring.”
I have to agree with temple that this comment is a bit much. Do you also feel that way about wedding rings? Am I chattel because my fiance gave me an engagement ring? Is that mitigated by the fact that I gave him an engagement watch? An engagement ring, just like a wedding ring, is a symbol. It happens to be one I’m rather attached to. It wasn’t a conflict diamond given to me by some mindless man on one knee. It’s a decision made by my fiance and me together, and I don’t think that makes me “chattel.”
dave
And you wonder why you’re single anil?
And kfan, I’m sure all those couples love how you rain on their parade. The concept that what is right for you may not be right for them is not a difficult one.
Elisabeth
I have to agree with temple that this comment is a bit much. Do you also feel that way about wedding rings? Am I chattel because my fiance gave me an engagement ring? Is that mitigated by the fact that I gave him an engagement watch? An engagement ring, just like a wedding ring, is a symbol.
Buying into the tradition of the engagement ring (much like many people buy into the tradition of the diamond engagement ring) doesn’t mean that the engagement ring does not symbolize that you are asking people to define you as being attached to a man who gave you a very expensive ring. Which is no problem, as far as I am concerned. People should define themselves however they want.
But please note. An engagement ring generally does not symbolize that you are involved with someone who respects your individuality— pretty much everyone who gets engaged gets one. It does not symbolize that you are in a relationship of mutual trust and affection, unless he’s also wearing a ring which announces to the world that he’s also taken. (Yes, if a man wears an engagement ring or some other token clearly showing that he’s involved, then the chattel effect is somewhat mitigated.) But, historically, women (and only women) wore engagement rings so that men would know to stay away from taken women and also to reflect glory upon the man who could afford such a pricy token. The giving of the engagement ring also symbolized that the man was serious about the engagement because he spent so much money on it (again, chattel). How many women have you heard say, “I’m not engaged until there’s a ring on my finger”? Isn’t someone engaged when both partners agree that they’re going to get married? Or does the man have all the say in that decision?
Wedding rings symbolize a commitment on both sides because both partners wear them. Gifts which aren’t diamond rings can symbolize an individualized expression of love. But when only one partner wears a ring which the world traditionally reads as “taken” or “owned”, then sorry, but yes, the word chattel does spring to mind.
Anil
And you wonder why you’re single anil?
I do? I am?
Bill Humphries
Righteous.
the mighty jimbo
Right on. What’s with women and diamonds anyway? It’s a rock. A shiny chunk or hardened carbon. That’s it. No big mystery, no magic. It’s all marketing and hype brought to you by DeBeers. And for the amount of money they charge for that chunck of carbon, aren’t there better ways to express lasting love? It’s two months salary - not income - SALARY. Pre Tax. For a tiny, shiny rock. How about an engagement Lexus? Or an engagement trip to Tahiti? Or an engagement cabin in the woods? Or an engagement downpayment on a house?
This of course may just be another reason why I am still single.
greg.org
When we got engaged in 2000, we were determined not to 1)risk getting a conflict diamond, or 2) support the black-hearted monopoloy of deBeers. The blood diamond issue was just heating up, in fact, and deBeers was starting a phony campaign to mitigate its criticism on the issue. Also, it was shifting its marketing strategy, teaming up with (equally manipulative fashion megalith) LVMH to market diamonds under the deBeers brand.
Instead, we searched for an estate diamond ring, which we eventually found and bought at auction, at a price that reflected the elimination of several layers of cartels. In addition to telegraphing socioeconomic class status at a distance as effectively as a new one (a survival skill here on the Upper East Side of Manhattan), up close it says “inherited money,” (aka “I didn’t have to buy a blood diamond; my grandfather did it for us.”)
Net net: We got a beautiful ring (created for a princess, Eugenie, a niece of King Leopold of Belgium) from a very elegant (recently investigated and indicted, colluding duopolist) joint. We couldn’t feel more self-satisfied.
Oh, and while I’m typing this on a wintel machine, I DON’T have an SUV.
Vera
I came here through Ariel’s site, and all I can say is: Totally. This whole hype surrounding The Ring (no, not the movie) that has infected our society is making me ill. A coworker of mine recently got engaged and I have been avoiding her ever since because I just don’t feel like having the “Let’s see the ring” talk and doing the obligatory Oooh’s and Aaah’s. This may sound mean but I just don’t feel like perpetuating this nonsense. I congratulated her on getting engaged but I don’t give a crap about her ring.
Michelle
I was just dropping in to ask if I was still going to hell for wearing my diamond engagement ring even if it were an estate diamond. But I see that Mr. Greg.org beat me to it.
Vera: no one’s going to force you to look at your co-worker’s ring. What a shitty reason to avoid someone.
Scott Ganz
How fortuitous that I should stumble onto this tract, since I’m going ring shopping this very week!
My fiancee wants one, but I think the reason she wants one is that her family, being rather traditional, is going to raise a 50 Megaton Stink if a rock is not delivered. We’re de-facto engaged already, but her parents won’t tell anyone because there isn’t a ring yet.
While I abhor being played the fool by anyone, I can mitigate it somewhat by going to a trusted broker instead of a mega-retail scammer like Harry Winston or Blue Nile.
Ultimately, however, when it comes to the woman of my dreams, I’m willing to dance with the devil. I just hope I don’t let him take me home.
mimi smartypants
Right on. By the time I got married, we had been living together for years and our finances were combined. If I wanted a diamond I would have bought my own. For the price of a diamond you can go to Europe, people. Europe or the rock? It’s a no-brainer.
Sarah B.
Amen. What’s worse are the women who get picky about where the diamond is from. So trashy.
Nathan H.
Thanks, Anil, for the piece. Glad to see there’s someone out there using his head (and his heart, for that matter).
Scott G: buy a cubic-zirconia, if you have to fold. You can cut glass with it—in fact, you can cut glass with glass, and her folks’ll never know the difference.
miguel
When we got engaged, I gave my wife an orange plastic spider ring I found at a local dime store for about a quarter. It turned out to be more memorable than a diamond ring, as well as cheaper, and we’re still married, more than 15 years later.
Whoever
One thing I got to ask, (more to the commentators): would you so strongly anti diamonds if the DeBeers family were US citizens?
Interesting (unconfirmed) fact - if you work for DeBeers, you can’t even set foot in the States. Why? Not for any moral reason but because the States is afraid that if DeBeers are given a chance, all US diamonds will also belong to them.
Much as I’m not defending DeBeers there’s a certain “holier than thou” factor here which is unpleasant.
In terms of “evil corporate conspiracies”, the diamond industry is hardly destroying the planet - these days governments start wars to defend our right to burn oil.
Much as the points in the essay are valid, I don’t hear anyone saying “And I won’t be buying my fiance a Ford either”
wgerrard
Flash: Blogger discovers people put greed above altruism, think money is good, more money better.
Next: The Rose Cartel — How The Floral Monopoly’s Stranglehold Robs Your Pocketbook
Medley
I wrote about this issue back in 2000 before hubby and I got engaged (http://www.uncorked.org/alltoocozy/archives/2000/000127.html). I was a bit milder than I might have been, given that several of my friends were getting engaged at the time, but I think ‘engagement ring for the girl’ is a wholly manufactured and subrational process whose symbolism borders on mysogynistic.
Mr. Nosuch
Screw the ring, get her a dog.
Nothing says “commitment” like adopting a four legged friend. (That’s assuming, of course, that she wants the dog.)
That’s what we did, and we get more love and delight from that fuzzy little menace than jewelry would ever provide.
amy
i’m with anil on this one. “if you love somebody, get them a chunk of carbon and fuse it to their finger!” a stupid and meaningless tradition for all us sheepish drones. it’s just a stone, people, it’s JUST a stone. and yeah, those de beers commercials are pretty fucking rad (dun dun dun dun DUN DUN DUN DUN!!), but if that’s all it takes for you to drop thousands of dollars just like that for a chunk of rock, then you have no hope in this world. and that’s not even getting into conflict diamonds, blood diamonds, the diamond monopoly, and our good friend and imperialist par excellence, cecil rhodes. whoa, nelly. leave me out, thanks very much.
Jeani
Elisabeth — I have the feeling we have very similar views on this, but just have made different decisions. I’m well aware of the history of male oppression and the history of the engagement ring. Just because something has a bad history I don’t believe that means the tradition is completely invalid. If that was the case, I wouldn’t be getting married at all, given the misogynistic history of the institution of marriage.
My main point is this (just as someone else said) — what’s right for you may not be right for someone else. I am a feminist and did not come to the decision to wear an engagement ring lightly. However, I must admit that at least part of it is the whole “I like shiny things” thing. But from what you’ve written, it seems it would be okay for me to wear an engagement ring only if my fiance is. He didn’t want to wear one (for various valid reasons) and instead preferred a watch. Why is this any less valid? I still do my feminist duty of explaining that I got him an engagement watch anytime someone admires my ring. I know that most people, including me, have a tendency to judge those who do something they don’t agree with. But I believe the point of feminism and the reason to fight against misogynistic culture is so that women and men are free to make the decisions that are best for them.
ryan
If I love someone who really appreciates a tiny finely-cut stone that costs me four paychecks, then I’ll probably buy diamonds to please her. But four paychecks can buy a lot of other things that can be appreciated, and strike me as even more romantic, like vacations and spa visits, dinners and portraits, sleigh rides, concerts and road trips. Things that forge experience, and create stories that forge bonds.
There are plenty of great ethical, legal, and economical reasons not to support the diamond industry, just as there are plenty of great reasons not to support the evils of the auto industry, big oil companies, Microsoft, and Yum! fast-food companies. There’s nothing outstandingly different about the ills of DeBeers, in this respect.
For me, the diamond industry offends because it is actively working to narrow our sense of romance and powers of imagination, and all over the world, women and men are buying into it. Diamons make up for lost time. Diamonds apologize for our misgivings, our embarassing idiosyncracies. Diamonds say what we have all become to lazy, busy, or unimaginative to say ourselves, with language and love. We work harder and longer away from our families to buy products that are supposed to express what we no longer have the time or understanding to express ourselves.
dave
“Right on. By the time I got married, we had been living together for years and our finances were combined.”
Of course buying a diamond would be stupid. Even getting married was a waste for you. If you were living together, what’s the point? You should be consistent. If you throw one outdated tradition away, don’t bother with the other.
Miguel. Nice story. However, I doubt the fact that you gave your wife a spider instead of a diamond ring has anything to do with your length of marriage. Nice try though.
What is amazing about every self righteous person here is that you fail to understand that different people hold different values and opinions.
If a diamond is a hunk of coal to you, great! Then it’s meaningless. Don’t buy one. But for someone else it might mean something very different. Even gasp special. It doesn’t matter what YOU think it means. We all give value to different things in the world and it is amazingly self centered for most of you here to think that because you don’t give any special value to a diamond than it must be the same for others.
Someone mentioned a trip to europe. News Flash. Some people hate traveling! A dvd player? Some people aren’t into movies.
Quit pushing your value system on others, or the terrorists will win.
Jennifer
Scott G, I’m in the same boat. My entire family has completely and utterly bought into the diamond promotion. They could write their own poster slogans, such as “You’re Not Engaged Without A Big Diamond!” and “If Your Fiance Didn’t Get You A Diamond He’s A Big Loser!” They also don’t consider us engaged- “that’s a promise ring you’re wearing, Jennifer”- and have made no secret of how they don’t approve of the engagement because there isn’t a ring and I “deserve a diamond.” I could just vomit.
No, he can’t afford a diamond, but that’s okay BECAUSE I DON’T WANT ONE, DAMMIT! I don’t like them! They’re white! They’re boring! They’re overhyped and overpriced! Should we have to give into the stupid stereotype of “diamond=love” just to get some freaking respect for the decision here? Apparently so. We’re thinking about picking up a fake 7$ ring at Wal-Mart.
Thanks for the diatribe, Anil, I appreciated it muchly.
dave
Actually, they’re not white at all. That’s what you get for looking at walmart though.
Jonathan
Dave - no need to get personal - your opinions here are clearly in the radical minority. Anil, and others, well said.
freddie
Read Darwin, evolutioanry Psy and Thorstein Vebel and you will know why women love diamonds…you have a lot of fighting to do to undue what is done.
Laurel Lemming
I find it hilarious that at the 10% of your salary link to adiamondisforever.com, there’s a graphic on the lower left that reads, “ALMOST 78% OF BRIDES RECIEVE A DIAMOND ENGAGEMENT RING.”
Yes, “recIEve.”
If 10% of my salary would hire them a copy editor, I’d do it.
John Macossay
It would be nice to date a woman who is not selfish and materialistic, but you could spend the rest of your life trying to find one. So you buy her a diamond. Or a fur coat. Or a cashmere sweater. Or a graphite frame mountain bike. Etc. None of them are worth their price and it doesn’t matter. What matters is that she wants it, she expects it, and if you don’t buy it for her the next guy will.
matt
Jonathon, dave’s opinions are in the minority. And this proves what? Am I missing something? Because he’s in the minority he must be wrong?
Go to any website and you will find any discussion to typically agree with the site’s author. That’s why most people read a site. They agree with the views.
Damn dave for not going along with the crowd right? Lord help us.
Dennis P.
I actually thought about this when I went to buy an engagement ring for my better half. I settled upon buying her an antique european cut diamond in an antique platinum setting. The only thing is the more I thought about it I realized that her ring (the setting is dated in the late 30’s but the rock is actually older)might not be bought from one of the new slave labor camps, but could have been mined with slaves a hundred years ago. The problem is that you have simply no way of telling. So all I can do is hope that it wasn’t. As for the whole engagement ring signifying chattel issue perhaps you should look at it from a different angle. In certain countries men give their wives or their wive’s family gifts of livestock or some other form of wealth. A diamond ring is simply a symbol that says, “I have wealth I am a worthy man who can care for and support your daughter.” Don’t even start on me about how bad such a concept is. In most traditional societies that is the way it is. In the US a diamond ring is simply a stunted, atrophied version of that concept since we no longer have need of oxen.
riele
Freddie, I don’t understand your point and I am an evolutionary biologist….
Mr. Nosuch, it’s funny that you mentioned a dog, because that’s what I asked my fiance to get me, instead of a diamond. So much nicer than a ring, for us.
Temple, I hear you on the whole “not necessarily chattel” thing, but sometimes letting your boyfriend know that you don’t want it just doesn’t work. I was in a serious relationship once where I specifically asked for no diamond, and he pretty much said I would be getting one, anyway, because “what would people think?” Which is one big reason why that’s past tense….
Whoa, Dave— maybe you should consider not pushing YOUR value systems before you throw stones.
matt
Speaking for dave, riele, his basic premise is that we each put a value on things in our lives.
A diamond is worthless to some, and valuable to others. The same could be said for a television, or a painting.
Hard to argue with that logic. Perhaps you should reread his post.
B.G.
Dave’s opinions may not be in a minority at all. Consider the demographic of people who read the full tract and then feel the need to comment.
I’ll be getting my girlfriend a diamond engagement ring soon (I’ll avoid the nasty cartels thanks to Anil). But she doesn’t wear jewlery and isn’t materialistic. I’d like her to have one nice, traditional thing and if she doesn’t like it she can always put it back in the box. It is, after all, just a symbol and we’ll be every bit as married as the couples who do wear rings (nice thought about the engagement watch, I don’t need it, but I’ll happily accept one if she feels there is a “chattel” factor involved).
Mike
“It would be nice to date a woman who is not selfish and materialistic, but you could spend the rest of your life trying to find one. So you buy her a diamond. Or a fur coat. Or a cashmere sweater. Or a graphite frame mountain bike. Etc. None of them are worth their price and it doesn’t matter. What matters is that she wants it, she expects it, and if you don’t buy it for her the next guy will.”
-I don’t have the time to find such a woman, it seems they have all been brainwashed since birth!
Jennifer
Eh, white, clear, what’s the difference really? It’s still boring.
And pink diamonds just make you look like a J.Ho fan. shudder
trish
my husband bought me a road bike as an engagement gift last year. We decided that we didn’t want to just fall in line with a marketing strategy - we wanted to get something that would serve as a symbol of our relationship (we ride together on weekends)and as useful gift (we commute on bike). Because it was special gift, he also spent far more on the bike than I could have justified myself. Everytime I ride, often with him, I feel better about myself and better about our relationship. Engagement gifts (and yes, he got one too) can show committment from each other and mine meant a lot to me in many ways a diamond never could.
vivian
“But please note. An engagement ring generally does not symbolize that you are involved with someone who respects your individuality— pretty much everyone who gets engaged gets one.”
That’s absurd. Do you not see the irony in your statement? If you think “everyone else is doing it” is a good reason to not get an engagement ring — putting aside the moral issues for a moment — you’re letting OTHER PEOPLE decide what you should do. I’d say that’s the opposite of being an individual. How about making your own decisions, everyone else be damned? Better stop telling people what to do, or everyone will be like you, and you won’t be an “individual” anymore.
matt
Good points vivian.
And the bike is a great idea, as long as you like bikes. And since a diamond wouldn’t mean anything to you, good job not buying one.
Again, individual choices and values.
(even though the bike will be but a memory in 10 years)
Jenn
In his most recent book, “When you ride alone you ride with Bin Laden” Bill Maher fills a good two pages with the exact reasons and sentiments expressed above about blood diamonds. It’s nice to see that so many people commenting above agree - that diamonds are not an ideal, somewhat unimaginative, and that such money on someone you love can be better, more creatively spent.
This is my first time reading your site. Great post, Anil.
Goodyear Walker
While I agree with every comment you make regarding Debeers, I’m afraid as a geologist, gem stone fan and hopeless (some say pathological) romantic, I must disagree with many of your statements about diamonds. They are the only “perfect” stone, in terms of crystal structure, refraction and hardness. A diamond is “forever” because nothing synthetic or natural can match it. I also love emeralds, rubys, moonstones, good Jade, garnets and old tourquise; but a good diamond stands above all of these in the same way Bach rises above Eminem. I can wish, hope and pray for alternative source, but my bride (of 20 years now) wears a Victorian diamond ring on her left hand.
matt
Jenn, if someone wants a diamond above all else then the money CANNOT be better, or more creatively spent, as you put it.
Natalie
I really bothers me that everyone here is arguing about engagement rings when we forget that women are not the only ones that wear diamonds. I’ll bet that P. Diddy or whatever the fuck his name is this month, owns more diamonds than your average female celebrity. Throwing around terms like “Ice” in hip-hop songs have made diamonds something wealthy men want just as much as the stereotypical woman.
Susan
I hate the false rarity that DeBeers’ practices engender. I HHH the ad campaigns that demean the love between a woman and a man. Labour exploitation, while it’s not unique to diamond mining (cocoa, coffee, almost anything made in China, etc.), is just another factor in my decision to forgo diamonds. However, I do love them - their radiance, the sparkle, the colours (have you ever seen a yellow diamond? breathtaking) - but I believe that CZ will do from now on.
Andy
Good article.
It is amazing how deeply rooted DeBeers ad campains are in the USA. I am originally from Europe and was very uneducated about the whole diamond story. My american girlfriend educated me: Well, so I started reseaching about diamonds, to get her a nice engagement gift and came across many interesting websites. One of them was the article from the Atlanic monthly, one of the very few critical reports on the diamond business. I showed it to her and she was apaled - not because of the diamond business but because I showed her the article (how could you? It’s a womans dream… I won’t let you take that away from me, etc.)
Usually, she is a very bright, openminded person, but she was not open to any critisism about a diamond engagement ring whatsoever. So I got her the ring and she was overjoyed and happy with tears streaming down her face and all.
I think it is basically peer pressure and continued sublime (or not so sublime) advertising impulses that makes her act this way.
Latest more sublime advertising: Jennifer Lopez gets big diamond ring from Ben Affleck and sings about it (…all the rocks that I got…) or James Bond catching the Diamond Smuggler.
Conflict diamonds, hm? I have an idea that that was prpagated by DeBeers as well, to insure that only diamond from ‘clean’ channels are being bought - just an effort to uphold their cartell and get generation X and Y into the boat. It seems, thanks to your article and others, to turn on them though.
Moral of the story: Marketing can be truly evil and triumphs over reason.
Beyond the Path
Selling The Ring is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of wedding-related marketing. The entire wedding industry is like DeBeers on crack. From the moment I started to plan my wedding, I saw ads for every imaginable item a woman could want for herwedding day, from the most inane things - like Crest Whitening Strips - to ads for of course the most expensive gown, reception hall, catering service, etc. It took a lot of effort to plan a reasonably priced wedding with individualized touches. It would have been much easier to just throw money at it, and I think that’s what a lot of guys do when proposing to their girlfriends.
For the record, I did indeed have an engagement ring, but we didn’t spend a ton of money on it, certainly nothing close to two months’ salary.
Cyril
I thought the Canadian diamonds were a safe bet (i.e. Fair Trade Diamonds) … until I read this: http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/15022002/featureprint.shtml
Great debate, thx for the Monday distraction …
Tom Coates
If I was going to assert the strength of my relationship with some dodgy bloke I’d picked up off the street several months previously, I often think ‘ring, wouldn’t that be nice’. Two rings exchanged. It’s a nice gesture. A symbolic finger-collar of mutual property-ownership. I like that. It’s kind of S&M. Anyway - so if I was going to get said dodgy poof partner a ring, and receive one in return, what would give the maximum wear-and-tear, quality, pleasant shinyness and sense of investment and commitment? Diamonds are right out. Should I go for gold rings (think they’re a bit tacky), platinum or stainless steel. Any thoughts from the floor?
Gillian
And I guess we can forget about roses, too.
This Living on Earth story made me think of your diamond entry. Like warmongering, pesticide poisoning kind of kills the romance.
Jacqui
I applaud the article here … but I’m still going to buy my girlfriend a diamond ring when I ask her to marry me. Why? Well, for a start, we’re both female. And amongst all the prejudice, the problems, the disapproval, I figure I get to keep to one of the “straight” traditions.
This way the world will know we’re serious. Her parents might have less of a problem. Idiot guys will stop hitting on her (OK, this might be too much to ask). And maybe, just maybe, if enough gay couples were wandering around wearing engagement rings, then the bloody government would wise up and let us get married.
Hopefully, what is apparent, is that the diamond is much more than its bloodstains, its size, its shape, is history. It’s a statement. It might be a good political statement mixed in with a bad, but right now it seems the right thing to do. I grew up in South Africa, I am aware of the hideous things De Beers did to me through my country. But I can still see the diamond engagement ring in isolation … the effort is merely one of perception.
This is important enough to me that I’ll buy one despite the blood, the monopoly, the fact that its just heated & compressed carbon. That mere fact says that it is so much more. Diamonds have power … even if its bestowed by those who buy it.
the kiosk
Brilliant post. We went sapphire, ourselves.
Vesta
Personally, I’m glad my fellow built me armor….
Ted Swart
Seems to me that the whole advetising industry only exists becauseit is direted to sucking women in. Diamonds are just one aspect of a larger whole. When the history of our era is written the extent to which advertsing beclouds the watching of TV will be regarded as nothing short of bizarre.
B. Durbin
You can’t win, really. I’ve never liked diamonds, though they’re my birthstone, because they’re dull unless you get them in an extremely large size. I like opals. When I received an opal engagement ring my mother objected that it was “bad luck” for anyone who didn’t have opal as their birthstone to wear them! (She likes opals a lot as well.) I looked up the superstition, which actually states that it’s bad luck to wear another person’s opals (which can probably be attributed to the fact that they’re fragile, and it’s bad luck to break someone else’s things.)
My husband and I picked out a ring for him that was an almost black sapphire, after the frustrated salesman tried various huge shiny stones. It didn’t hurt that it was marked down 65%… :)
Tom
For those of you interested in alternatives to diamond, you should consider moissanite. Moissanite is nothing more than single-crystal silicon carbide, a relatively new semiconductor material. The unsurpassed semiconductor properties of SiC actually give it optical properties superior to those of diamond. It is also the second-hardest material in existence, and is in some ways more durable than diamond - it cannot be split along cleavage planes the way a diamond can, and it cannot oxidize at the temperatures found in a typical fire (a possibility with diamond). Moissanite is availible both as a colorless stone and in varying shades of green (created by doping with nitrogen). While it is quite a bit more expensive than cubic zirconia and similiar substances, it is still far cheaper than diamond.
I apologize if I sound like a sales rep - I simply spent a summer working as an assistant in a solid-state physics lab where silicon carbide was all we worked with. The professor I was working for, one of the world’s top experts on SiC, explained all of this about moissanite to me (and actually had a table posted outside his office door comparing its optical properties and hardness to those of other gemstones). I recall that he also took issue with the artificial scarcity of diamonds.
Malachai
I can understand the value behind the diamond, and why they are valuable to some people. I can understand why people are concerned about Conflict/Blood Diamonds as well.
The fact of the matter is there’s little fact that matters here. Everyone is going to have their own opinions about the subject, no matter what.
I have mine, though they’re complex and so possibly hypocritical that I can simply agree with many of the posts here.
Varkey
There is now a market in “cultured diamonds”, which seem just as good physically as natural diamonds, without the war-related ethical questions. I think they will be quite expensive at first (although much less than a natural diamonds), but if a free and competative market emerges they could be made for the price of a cinema ticket.
I suspect DeBeers will try to attach a stigma to them, and try to somehow say they are not as good as natural ones.
Although I am not one for jewellry, that Moissanite sounds underrated compared to diamond.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html
oldpbass
I’m very concerned that many of the diamonds on the open market are these very high-grade artificial ones. One of the big three networks had an expose’ recently, and exibited how these ‘diamonds’ can actually fool a machine designed to stop such Tom-foolery. Armed with this valuable information, can any of us EVER trust a piece of paper insuring a diamond’s authenticity?
Anonymous
I agree with you about diamonds. They are another way to hide the reality of Americans having a strong connection with lots of global conflict and yet they can find a way to feel disconnected. Buy cz and things that look like diamonds if you want that look. Why be a part of something so sisnister and then turn around and cry about injustices in far away places when you are wearing some of the funding that can keep them going?
Andy
Nice to see Google Adwords doing their job perfectly at the bottom of the entry… :)
Lonita
Thank you, thank you very much for putting into much more eloquent words than I ever have, my feelings about diamonds.
I’ve never liked them. I’ve always considered them to be an unimaginative, uninspired gift given because the giver can’t be arsed thinking up something better. They have no personality, those rocks, there’s no colour, no life, nothing to spark an interest. They don’t speak to me, they say nothing, they are not worth a tinker’s damn. There is nothing spiritual or beautiful about them. They lack soul. They are overpriced spectres of dying tradition and manipulation. Diamond adverts make me cringe, they give me the heebies.
I want no “expression of love” that isn’t picked out for me specifically, and diamonds are as common as dirt and dull as ditchwater.
july_rain
My fiance and I do not want to encourage conflict diamond purchase and we feel the entire tradition of purchasing a stone to symbolize love is a little ridiculous.
We want to donate to a charity in honor of our engagement. Are their any other like-minded couples out there. We would like to start a group to encourage a new tradition.
TresWife
Or instead of boycotting diamonds completely… we could always force an artifical glut of the market while *truly* creating sentimental value in a diamond - have our recently-deceased loved ones cremated and compressed.
It’s apparently a new method of disposing of your loved ones bodies, costing little more than the cremation itself, and far less than a traditional burial.
Bonus: Have the end product mounted into a custom piece of jewelry, and you instantly have a genuine, bona-fide family heirloom.
Screw deBeers. I have plenty of relatives who should start dropping off like flies any day now. And I’ve already left written instructions that this is what I want done with my own rotting corpse.
Anonymous
i bought a fake diamond from www.carat.cc website the ring and gold IS NOT a quality one. trying to contact them back for a refund or exchange but no reply. just to warn people not to purchase from them.
JimDesu
Actually, there’s a nice reason to buy diamonds that doesn’t have anything to do with value: it’s an attractive stone, with high coefficients of refraction and dispersion. They’re certainly overpriced due to the artificial demand, but you pay for what you get. The real thing is: are you buying diamonds because you like them, or because they’re a stand-in for social status? If the latter, then the money would be better spent on therapy.
EeenyWeeny
The “she’ll almost have to…” isn’t just a parody - i first witnessed this in an Australian men’s magazine for a real jeweler about 5 or so years ago.
Disgusted me then, disgusts me now.
Anonymous
Thank you for your insights. I did some research before getting engaged and my husband and I decided against a diamond. Instead we spent a fourth of the price we might have spent on a diamond on a simple sapphire ring and donated the rest to charity. It frustrates me to no end to see women who have just gotten engaged and have the ring be the first thing people want to see or talk about. Not only is your money going to an injust company and industry, but the rings also fuels the lie (that DeBeer’s has created) that a women’s worth is in the size or quality of a diamond. I don’t need my husband to buy me an expensive piece of jewelry for me to know he loves me or to know that I am valuable.
cbine 
It was nice to run across this site. I am a jewelry designer for www.customfashionjewerly.com and am almost always appalled at how many and how much women love diamonds. When I got engaged, we had an artist make all three rings with the engagement ring housing a star sapphire. This is a beautiful stone that glows whenever the light hits it. These rings mean so much more to us that anything we could have bought from a jeweler, especially one of large stores that showcase thousands of diamonds at highly-inflated prices. Debeers will only change their ways if people stop buying diamonds because of their mining practices. I hate supporting the diamond industry in South Africa. I will never buy a diamond, own a diamond, or use one in my own designs. When I was a business student in college, Debeers was frequently mentioned because of their anomaly of being a global monopoly and the world’s reluctance to wrestle this monster. They have literally brainwashed Western women into thinking that a diamond equals love and commitment — which is ostentatious and sad. It’s even more ridiculous Debeers has a new ad campaign pushing the forever diamond for the right hand. It’s hard to sway people’s opinions about the diamond industry. I am constantly having to explain why I don’t have a diamond on my left hand, it is very rare that I run into someone who agrees with me. So it was nice to read some other people’s words that strike a chord with my own.
Andrwe Woodworth
There are some wonderful, conflict-free diamonds being mined in Northern Canada.
They’re still just overpriced rocks…
Lisa
I have a great BIG diamond. It’s real and it’s beautiful. Sucks you can’t have one too!
Kate
Here’s a reason to not buy diamonds - the fact that civil wars are being fought over them, the fact that people are being killed over them, the fact that people are mining them out of the ground with their bare hands at gunpoint, and so on and so forth.
I would feel the same way about any industry that uses torture, murder and war to acheive its goals.
Diamonds = painful deaths for people halfway around the world. If you couldn’t care less about that, then I’d think your problems are a bit deeper than whether or not an engagement ring on your finger symbolises that you are chattel, or whether or not you think they are pretty or not.
DIAMONDS = MURDER
DIAMONDS = SUFFERING
Kate
Here’s a reason to not buy diamonds - the fact that civil wars are being fought over them, the fact that people are being killed over them, the fact that people are mining them out of the ground with their bare hands at gunpoint, and so on and so forth.
I would feel the same way about any industry that uses torture, murder and war to acheive its goals.
Diamonds = painful deaths for people halfway around the world. If you couldn’t care less about that, then I’d think your problems are a bit deeper than whether or not an engagement ring on your finger symbolises that you are chattel, or whether or not you think they are pretty or not.
DIAMONDS = MURDER
DIAMONDS = SUFFERING
James
Say what you will about diamonds being overpriced or artificially inflated above market value, but it’s simply not true. If it were, DeBeers would be out of business. The fact is that people choose to buy diamonds at the current price, which means that they are not overpriced. The market adjusts itself, people, go back to Econ 101.
People are often stupid, but no amount of human stupidity warrants someone else making decisions for you. When people decide that diamonds aren’t worth the money, DeBeers will fold. Until then, people will pay the money and give the diamond. It’s just that simple.
Oh, and all you idiots blathering on about child labor and sweatshops are fools. They’re not being forced to work, unless it’s by their country’s terrible poverty. If a child in a third-world country is working you can bet it’s so their family can put food on the table. The market takes care of itself, people. If you outlaw child labor, they starve. If you institute a minimum wage, they starve. Do your research, this kind of thing is not a new phenomenon. If you really want to help people in Africa, lobby our government to lift the ban on selling DDT. Malaria caused more deaths in Africa last year alone (about 900,000) than all the diamond mining ever will. DDT is the cheapest, most effective way to counter malaria, but thanks to the environmental movement we banned it without ANY evidence that it harms humans, and in doing so signed a death warrant for almost a million Africans a year. Again, do the research: DDT has NEVER been shown to harm people. People ATE it for a year.
Live free or die.
Robert Jenkins
“James” above is one of the few people who make sense here. Especially on the DDT. James is also 100% right on the malaria deaths. Most of the posters here are knee-jerk we-know-better-than-you liberals who THINK they have a solution, but don’t. All I read is whining and complaining because the world is not the way you think it should be.
Look, Africa has ALWAYS been full of a thousand conflicts. It’s one thing or another, on and on forever. Take away the diamonds, and they’ll just have a civil war over another reason. At any given time, over HALF of the wars in the world are taking place in Africa. Sometimes more. It’s naïve and absurd to think the diamond industry has more than a speck of impact on the war-death count in Africa. Heck, over 800,000 people were hacked to death by machetes in 7 weeks back in 1994 in Rwanda. All because they were in the “wrong” tribe. Not one diamond was involved there.
And are diamonds overpriced? Well, they ain’t cheap, but nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy them. Nobody forced me to buy my house, or my BMW either. But, wanting to be part of normal society, and not be seen as being a whacked-out activist tree-hugging freak, I decided to do the normal thing and buy a diamond when I proposed. Big friggin deal. If you want the prices to go down, don’t buy them. Just quit your baby whining on all these issues which are just an obvious front for your socialistic and wrongheaded agendas. Go buy your wife a CZ ring if you hate diamonds too much. I’ll be the one standing there laughing when she uncovers your cheap ass and never trusts you again to act like a real man.
Anonymous
If you really were to analyze the source of where your everyday things come from you would probably have to end up on a deserted island to avoid being a part of some kind of a conflict. Just look around: a tank of gas for your car - political unrests, affordable clothing you all buy - made in some poor countries sweatshops probably by small children. There are lots and lots of things to feel guilty about and to critisize, it just makes it so much easier to bash the luxury goods that not many can afford and many can leave without. It’s always easier to be righteous when it’s costing you less than when it’s costing you more.
It’s pretty clear that diamond is not forever, is not rare and we are taken advantage of by clever and unethical advertisers. People are not stupid, they know that but still buy it just like there has always been and always will be a market for luxury goods. How much better do you think is a 10,000 swiss watch is than a $200 watch? How much better is a 2000 designer bag than a 200 less known designer bag? Hey, this is just a way of life in it’s every aspect. There always has been a need for humans to display a ‘sign’ or a ‘tag’ of their wealth or marriage status. Diamond is the one used today, tomorrow it may be something else, but I am pretty sure it will be something rather than nothing and new marketers will take DeBeers place. I just find it annoying to have to hear all this righteous noise from people who for all you know maybe simple ‘player haters’ who would have gotten a diamond if they could afford it. So why should I trust you people..
Jackie
Due to the whole diamond industry scam, I insisted on a cubic zirconia from my fiancee. NOBODY has been able to tell the difference. I don’t have to worry about what happens to it. It’s shiny enough for me. If I have to be a one-woman boycott of that industry I will. Unfortunately, my family is all duped by the diamond scam and they think I have “settled” for this cubic zirconia and seem to think my fiance is a cheapskate. My dad keeps telling him about a cheap diamond store - as if it’s just a matter of money. Believe me, we’re not hurting for money. If I wanted one, he’d get it for me. I hope to set an example to others of the preposterousness of it. My dad says “It’s worth what people will pay for it.” Yeah, if you want to be in that rat race, I guess. Try reselling your diamond for anything close to what you paid for it. Two month’s salary???????? can you believe the audacity they have to suggest how much you should spend on top of it all? Personally, I’d rather take a nice cruise with that kind of money.
Paco
Why should one trust other people on the net? Well for one reason, they didn’t pay millions of dollars to post their viewpoint. And they probably don’t have a worldwide monopoly on a commodity, seeking to further their own agenda. Given that they spent their own time for no financial return, I’d say any opinions expressed are genuine and heartfelt, if not a bit confused.
Moving on. “James,” the one factor you hadn’t included is that DeBeers used their financial strength…..and continues to use it….to prop up the demand for the goods, while they also control the supply. That, in a sense, is the real evil. The willingness to fan the flames of greed and demand. DeBeers is very much not alone in this pursuit, just turn on the TV. Yes, it’s capitalism, the worst system except for all the others, but capitalism breaks down in the face of monopolies (see U.S. in the 20th century, copious exampes).
Anyway, this brings me back to my point and why I bothered to post. The real problems are human greed and ignorance. Robert Jenkins, thank you for your enlightening world-view about genocide, BMWs, and masculinity. You, yourself, are not the problem, but most definitely a symptom of it. Greed is something which we as individuals must hope to counter if we have any chance of postponing or stopping our own mad dash toward extinction.
Education, open-mindedness, and the sharing of ideas like these are the power of the internet, and our real, true hope.
I am going to buy a diamond for now, though probably only a half-carat. I’m going to do it through a high-end shop because it feels good, and my girlfriend and I have been trained like monkeys to feel this way.