I think some diamonds are retrieved by those means, but not all of them.
No, not all of them. But there is hardly any way for the end consumer to know how they were mined. We can ask the jeweller, but he might not know. And even if he thinks he does - he might very well not be right.
Besides, my quarrel is not only with the immoral side of the diamond business. But with several key aspects.
1. What diamonds represent in terms of:
- consumerism/materialism
I think it is disturbing to see diamonds carry such a heavy focus. Why should a young couple who decide to marry pay a laaarge sum for a piece of jewelry when they have so many expenses upcoming? Why put such a heavy focus on the engagement ring, and so little on the actual wedding band for instance? It seems skewed to me.
- societal structure and status
Again, especially due to the age of newly engaged couples it is hard to get a stone of any size, but us guys feel a pretty intense pressure on getting as large a one as we can, because of what it represents. Because of it's societal importance. Even a small stone can leave a significant dent in our budgets which will be very hard to deal with considering the upcoming expenses related to getting married, building a home, possible children soon after...
2. What getting a diamond reveals
This blends in with #1 I guess. But getting a diamond can in many parts of society be critical to gain respect from the in-laws. Why? No-one really knows. Not really. A diamond in itself is a common stone, but has been priced ludicrously high because of a very good advertising campaign. So I am left to wonder, does getting a diamond actually say "I love you", or does it say "I care more about appearances and cultural norms than I do about common sense and our future together as a couple"?! A ring like an engagement ring is a beautiful thing which can be a wonderful thing to own as a memento if nothing else. But why a diamond? As stated, they are overpriced, often from origins which are hard to trace and can be very unethically acquired. And not to mention that
- they are exceptionally common and normal on engagement rings. What about something that speaks about your relationship specifically? Instead of something which is so standard you see it on the hands of almost every engaged or married girl out there - why not get something unique? Why not put more thought into it than "How big a diamond can my fiancee/I afford?" Or "Platinum or gold?"
In my personal opinion I find engagement rings for women alone to be an unfair business... What's more though, I am a romantic, though not the kind who thinks what everyone else does is romantic - I prefer to do things my way. I wrote our vows for the wedding ceremony. I proposed in a very unusual fashion. And our rings were a unique representation of our love.
A diamond can't deliver that too easilly. It's too normal. Too common. So it seems to me if you get a diamond you're more concerned about how expensive the engagement ring is than what you say with the ring you give. Oh sure, any ring is a symbol of love - but is it a symbol of
your love?
Hmm, has anybody else really researched this claim about 'blood diamonds' or did we all just go and see that over-the-top movie with Leo in it, and simply roll our eyes? (like me)
Actually, I was glad to see the movie put the spotlight on a very real problem. That movie was by no means why we chose what we did though.
I don't get it. The people in the pic look healthy and happy. Surely buying diamonds help them out?
Sure. You know, as you went to Bergenbelsen or Auschwitz you'd find people who smiled and laughed. That doesn't mean the concentration camps were good and the people happy to be there. Smiles is one of our best ways of coping with terrible conditions. Many survived the holocaust largely due to humor.
Slave labor doesn't mean people look like the photos of kids from Sudan hunger catastrophes.
A friend of mine is a missionary in Bangladesh. He told me of a couple of guys he met who were construction workers, in his words they looked like greek gods - toned muscles unlike the best you see on beaches in the west. Lean bodies. BUT - slaves nevertheless. Well, not slaves really. Worse. He recalled what happened at a construction site when one of the workers broke a leg - his colleagues carried him off the construction site and dumped him in a ditch. That was it - he was fired. These people may not be slaves in the traditional sense. That would be better than what they are. They get paid but a few dollars (if that) for stones that sells for tens of thousands of dollars here.
