Diamonds Still In The Rough
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Money, The World
With the upcoming film Blood Diamond about to hit theatres, more eyes are focused on the diamond trade and how those shiny little rocks make their way onto our fingers.
And rightly so. Because while DeBeers, the company with the monopoly on the worldwide diamond trade, may no longer be indirectly financing genocide and civil wars to make sure their product doesn’t drop in value ( a value they created out of thin air), this is one of those companies I actively denounce in social situations and explain why I don’t buy their product.
Now, I certainly don’t condemn those who do, but I certainly will go toe-to-toe with anybody who suggests that the diamond industry has changed for the better. Sure, they don’t supply the money that finances torture, mutilation and genocide. Sorry, but that’s not what I consider “better.”
In any event, the point of all this is I’m pleased to see that Foreign Policy magazine has put together a powerful photo essay that shows a diamond’s journey from start to finish. Because we need to pay far more attention to the things we consume, especially morally suspect items like diamonds.
Please take a look.
This entry was posted on Friday, December 8th, 2006 and is filed under Money, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 8th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Who is responsible for this genocide ladies? Yep, that’s right, you! In the Billy Ray Valentine School of Economics: If women didn’t leverage their sexual goods on a little rock, there wouldn’t be a demand and thus, there would not be genocide in Africa. So from me and a whole bunch of Africans – please ladies — stop using diamonds as a proxy for male sexual worthiness. There are other proxies that you can use which accomplish the same biological and cultural goal — pretty much anything which symbolizes conspicious wealth — like exotic animal furs. As for me, the next little blue box I get for Mrs. DosPeros will have a picture of a dead African in it.
December 8th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
DP, your little rant there presupposes that all women subscribe to Marilyn’s notion that “diamonds are a girl’s best friend”. Frankly, I find the diamond to be overdone. I like my sapphire engagement ring, and I feel sorry for those poor girls who can’t get their minds out of the diamond rut. They’re really missing out.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Okay SS, but what exotic fur coat would you wear:
http://primefurs.com/exotic_room.htm
December 8th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Y’know, I’m REALLY happy with my CZs…. it’s sorta one of those “who the hell cares if they’re fake” things…..
December 9th, 2006 at 2:42 am
Dos you might have been on spot 10 years ago but we now live in an age in which “bling” is a status symbol for both genders. However as a general trend women remain the largest consumers of diamonds only because men buy them for them.
If you’re going to point fingers make sure to pint them in the right direction. Frankly I’m of the opinion that most men are pretty clueless in the realm of romance and substitute expensive/grandiose gifts rather than making a genuine effort to actually find out what would please their signifigant other.
To clarify 26 flowers sent every other week will score you more points than two dozen flowers sent at once. (Although your average florist has a minimum delivery charge of 30$ so you may want to deliver the individual flowers yourself.) Conversely three 500$ sapphire pieces of jewelry will serve you better over the course of time than one 1500$ diamond ring (particularly if your lady love has blue eyes). I may be a single dad but that doesn’t mean I don’t know squat about women.
Its similiar to the law enforcement problem of who do you punish the most severly? The junkies, the dealers, or the suppliers.?