5 ms·
> This is why many women will accept, at the rational level, that diamonds are horrible and stupid and even evil (since they fuel all kinds of violence in Afric
by slavak 14y ago
> This is why many women will accept, at the rational level, that diamonds are horrible and stupid and even evil (since they fuel all kinds of violence in Africa, where they are mined). But most of them will not be able to bring themselves to accept substitutes such as sapphires, rubies, or emeralds. Because that would make their female friends think that the guy does not value them as much (or that they weren't able to find a guy who finds them worthy enough for a diamond).
This is, sadly, so very very true.
When I was proposing I wanted to get an alternative precious stone that would be actually rate - or, at least, a man-made diamond. I told my SO everything about how they're not rare, the price-fixing, the conflict diamonds - but she barely budged because of what her friends would think of it. I managed to sell the idea of a man-made diamond, but eventually had to settle for a natural one which wasn't sourced from Africa because of just how rare they are and how difficult it was to ship them to my country.
- taejo 14y ago> but eventually had to settle for a natural one which wasn't sourced from Africa Because Africa is all one big war zone. Because any money sent to Africa funds violence. Seriously? Why is it so much better to buy from Russia than South Africa or Botswana? (the money's all going to De Beers -- which was originally a South African company -- or a similar multinational anyway). The top four diamond-producing countries in Africa (the top two are actually not African: Russia and Canada) are Botswana, Angola, South Africa and Namibia. All of these countries are poor, sure. They all have some political problems, sure. But they are all democracies with somewhat functional governments; none of them are at war (the Angolan civil war ended in 2002). Multinational mineral companies aren't always the best thing for locals, but the idea that the only money sent to Africa should arrive on a UN food truck is far worse.
- slavak 14y agoNo, but it's impossible for me to know where in Africa the diamond is coming from, which means it's impossible to know whether or not it's a conflict diamond. I know that diamond miners in Russia or India have decent working conditions and that there's no chance of the proceeds going to fund a bloody civil war; I have no such confidence when the most specific answer the jeweler can give me regarding the stone's origins is "Africa."
- taejo 14y agoIs it really true (I'm not doubtful, just shocked) that the jeweller can tell you what country the diamond came from unless that country is in a particular continent?
- sp332 14y agoCountries in Africa are smaller than Russia or India. Borders are crossed much more easily.
- danudey 14y agoBecause of the 'blood diamond' controversy, the diamonds get mixed up together, sold around, exported, smuggled, etc. There's no way to track them. Canadian ice diamonds, on the other hand, are all laser-engraved with a serial number, making it possible to verify each diamond's authenticity and source. According to the jeweller I spoke to, the only guarantee she could make is 'Canadian' or 'not Canadian'; she couldn't even guarantee me African, Russian, etc. She did, of course, offer to sell me a ring with 'who knows' diamonds and then remove them and put Canadian diamonds in, but at that point I'm paying for 'who knows' and Canadian diamonds, which seemed a little idiotic.
- mullingitover 14y agoThe problem with buying diamonds from anywhere is that you're giving conflict diamonds added value through the simple fact of your demand for them. They're a fungible commodity. Essentially there is no diamond that is not a blood diamond.
- taejo 14y agoAbsolutely. Buying Canadian/Russian/Indian diamonds doesn't help. Hmm, actually, they aren't perfectly fungible. 100 one-carat diamonds aren't worth the same as one 100-carat diamond, and even diamonds of the same weight aren't substitutable. But with respect to country of origin, yeah.
- n09n 14y agoWanting the respect of others in your peer group is sad now?
- setrofim_ 14y agoI think what's sad here is not the desire for the respect of one's peers, but the means chosen to attain it; or rather, the arbitrarily-established mechanisms for doing so.
- Gravityloss 14y agoShe should change her friends.
- doctorstupid 14y agoWanting respect is fine, but not respect based upon the size of an arbitrary stone.
- n09n 14y agoWhat's worse about that than any other silly thing to respect someone for?
- darkarmani 14y ago> Wanting the respect of others in your peer group is sad now? Wanting superficial respect based on material things is sad.
- n09n 14y agoWhy do you care what the respect is based on? What differentiates "superficial" respect from genuine respect? I guarantee you the criteria you use to judge people look equally ridiculous to other people too.
- scarmig 14y agoWhat's your point, exactly? Slaveholders and abolitionists certainly chose to respect different people in the 19th century. That doesn't change the fact that slaveholders who judged people based on how large their plantation was were horrible people not worthy of our respect. And to drive the point home: those diamonds you see in rings have a non-negligible chance of coming from child slaves, who have been torn from their families in civil war and will probably be setting off land mines once the diamond mines run out. I actively disrespect the choice to purchase them.