Posted on 01/06/2007 7:44:37 PM PST by blam
Diamonds are no longer a girl's best friend
By Chris Hastings, Stephanie Plentl and Beth Jones, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:29am GMT 07/01/2007
Diamonds have been synonymous with Hollywood glamour since Marilyn Monroe declared them to be a girl's best friend in the film Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. But now a new generation of Hollywood stars is shunning the stones as a new film exposes the darker side of the international diamond trade.
Blood Diamond tells the story of forced-labour diamond mines
For the first time in the 79-year history of the Oscars, certain kinds of diamond will be absent from the annual prize-giving ceremony. Normally the awards, which will take place on February 25, are awash with sparkling stones, with some stars even choosing to wear them on their shoes.
But now many of the biggest names in Hollywood are asking agents and diamond experts to ensure they are not photographed wearing illicit diamonds.
The backlash against the stones has led to diamonds being dubbed the "new fur", as stars increasingly try to make sure that they are not wearing anything that might be regarded as unethical.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly, the stars of Blood Diamond, as well as Kayne West, the rap artist, the models Iman and Erin O'Connor – the face of Marks and Spencer – are leading the backlash. Blood Diamond, part of which was filmed in London's Hatton Garden diamond district, is set in civil war-ravaged Sierra Leone and tells the story of forced-labour diamond mining companies.
The success of the film, which has already opened in America and comes to UK cinemas at the end of the month, has led to an upsurge in demand for so-called conflict-free diamonds, which carry a certificate of confirmation that their trade is not connected with war, civil strife or human rights abuses.
Gaia Geddes, the jewellery editor at Harper's Bazaar, said: "You have the Oscars and Baftas coming up, and that's when the stars wear very big rocks. This year there will be a lot of focus on conflict-free diamonds and a lot of people will take a stand, just like they did with fur."
Connelly, 36, who plays a journalist in the movie, made a point of wearing "conflict-free" diamonds to the film's American premiere last month.
"I think what I got out of the film is a desire to be a more ethnical consumer," she said. "I did some research and there are companies like Bulgari, like Tiffany, that are striving to be clean and accountable and that provide written guarantees that their diamonds are conflict-free.
Iman pulled out of her contract as the face of De Beers
"No one is saying boycott diamonds but [buyers] can be pro-active and go to their jewellers and say, 'Can you show me a certificate? Can you give me a verifiable warranty that these diamonds are conflict-free?'"
Jane Fonda, the double Oscar-winning actress and friend of the film's producer, Paula Weinstein, has also revealed how she has made sure she only wears conflict-free diamonds.
African tribes in conflict with the diamond industry are actively targeting the world's celebrities in a bid to win them over. Last year, Bushmen in the Kalahari in dispute with De Beers wrote an open letter in Variety to DiCaprio, seeking his support.
Eileen Kelly, the manager of Abiba, a jeweller in Hatton Garden, said: "Recently we have had more and more customers come into the shop because of publicity about the film and ask where the diamonds have come from. We can say that we do not sell conflict diamonds. For the past year we have quite clearly printed on our receipts that our diamonds are conflict-free."
The campaign against the diamond trade had been building up even before the release of Blood Diamond. In 2004 Iman, who is married to the singer David Bowie, pulled out of her contract as the face of De Beers in protest at what she claimed was the company's eviction of tribespeople from their land in Botswana. In 2005, the actress Julie Christie joined a protest outside the Natural History Museum in support of the same tribesmen.
De Beers denies all the allegations levied against it in connection with diamonds. The company declined to comment last night, but a spokesman for the World Diamond Council, the representative body of the diamond industry, said: "We don't have any issue with the film. The important thing is that the movie is based in the past, in 1999, and the situation now is that the vast majority of conflict is over.
"The diamond industry contributes over $8 million (about £4.5 million) per year to local African economies, which helps to build schools, hospitals and provide employment."
My wedding ring is an opal. I'd rather have opals than diamonds any day.
Dated, but still pertinent article.
Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198202/diamond
I don't give a damn about the title of the friggin' movie, Rex Reed. And man, am I glad I am not married to a woman like you. That huge font really makes your point, doesn't it. I can just imagine how you *sream* when you get into a "debate."
By the way, when man-made diamonds make your little gift worth a lot less, will that mean that your husband's love is worth that much less too? Just wondering. Go scream at yourself.
Congratulation, you fell for the diamond marketing scam hook, line, and sinker! No, I didn't get my wife a diamond, and that *proves* I don't love her or think much of her. What a friggin' fool.
I just wonder how many struggling young couples squandered a big chunk of their budget on a diamond and then couldn't afford the down payment on a house. I wonder how they feel about that ring now that housing prices have tripled in ten years (in my area, anyway).
Interesting. Thanks for that information.
Most couples don't mind purchasing diamonds for their future spouses. In fact I know of hardly any that don't get them for one another. If they so chose to spend their hard earned money to get each other a nice diamond as a symbol of their love for one another then who are you sir, to determine how long they work to pay for it. You're in the minority.
I like those stones as well and like you I buy them to wear and don't worry about what they will be worth if I sell them. I have sold them on occasion when I have upgraded what I have. I have been fortunate enough to get very good prices for them. On the other hand I don't buy cheap ones to begin with. I like quality and quality does hold it's value.
Look, I don't care what people buy voluntarily for their spouses to express their love. The problem is that the diamond industry, through its marketing, has created this ridiculous notion that if you don't buy a diamond for your wife-to-be, then you are some kind of cheapskate and you don't really love her as much as someone who does buy a diamond.
In other words, many people feel intense social pressure to buy (or receive) the diamond, so they aren't really buying it out of genuine love. They are merely falling victim to an absurd marketing scam.
And I just can't help but wonder how many of those poor schmucks who buy the diamond can't afford to buy a house or send their children to college.
No he didn`t marry her, maybe I wrote it wrong. He bought the engagement ring to propose to her, and when he did, she took one look at the ring and got mad and rejected him because she thought it was too small, but that`s New York for you. I had a girl I asked out once tell me once she doesn`t date guys who make less then $300k a year (and this was back in 1991) So I asked her what she charged per hour... Doh!
Thanks for posting the link to this article. Here is an excerpt:
... Specifically, the Ayer study stressed the need to strengthen the association in the public's mind of diamonds with romance. Since "young men buy over 90% of all engagement rings" it would be crucial to inculcate in them the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women had to be encouraged to view diamonds as an integral part of any romantic courtship.
Since the Ayer plan to romanticize diamonds required subtly altering the public's picture of the way a man courts -- and wins -- a woman, the advertising agency strongly suggested exploiting the relatively new medium of motion pictures. Movie idols, the paragons of romance for the mass audience, would be given diamonds to use as their symbols of indestructible love. In addition, the agency suggested offering stories and society photographs to selected magazines and newspapers which would reinforce the link between diamonds and romance. Stories would stress the size of diamonds that celebrities presented to their loved ones, and photographs would conspicuously show the glittering stone on the hand of a well-known woman. ...
Hey, check this out........
http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/conflictdiamonds.htm
Ten Reasons Why You Should Never Accept a Diamond Ring from Anyone, Under Any Circumstances, Even If They Really Want to Give You One (2/14/02)
By Liz Stanton, CPE Staff Economist
1. You've Been Psychologically Conditioned To Want a Diamond
The diamond engagement ring is a 63-year-old invention of N.W.Ayer advertising agency. The De Beers diamond cartel contracted N.W.Ayer to create a demand for what are, essentially, useless hunks of rock.
2. Diamonds are Priced Well Above Their Value
The De Beers cartel has systematically held diamond prices at levels far greater than their abundance would generate under anything even remotely resembling perfect competition. All diamonds not already under its control are bought by the cartel, and then the De Beers cartel carefully managed world diamond supply in order to keep prices steadily high.
3. Diamonds Have No Resale or Investment Value
Any diamond that you buy or receive will indeed be yours forever: De Beers’ advertising deliberately brain-washed women not to sell; the steady price is a tool to prevent speculation in diamonds; and no dealer will buy a diamond from you. You can only sell it at a diamond purchasing center or a pawn shop where you will receive a tiny fraction of its original "value."
4. Diamond Miners are Disproportionately Exposed to HIV/AIDS
Many diamond mining camps enforce all-male, no-family rules. Men contract HIV/AIDS from camp sex-workers, while women married to miners have no access to employment, no income outside of their husbands and no bargaining power for negotiating safe sex, and thus are at extremely high risk of contracting HIV.
5. Open-Pit Diamond Mines Pose Environmental Threats
Diamond mines are open pits where salts, heavy minerals, organisms, oil, and chemicals from mining equipment freely leach into ground-water, endangering people in nearby mining camps and villages, as well as downstream plants and animals.
6. Diamond Mine-Owners Violate Indigenous People's Rights
Diamond mines in Australia, Canada, India and many countries in Africa are situated on lands traditionally associated with indigenous peoples. Many of these communities have been displaced, while others remain, often at great cost to their health, livelihoods and traditional cultures.
7. Slave Laborers Cut and Polish Diamonds
More than one-half of the world's diamonds are processed in India where many of the cutters and polishers are bonded child laborers. Bonded children work to pay off the debts of their relatives, often unsuccessfully. When they reach adulthood their debt is passed on to their younger siblings or to their own children.
8. Conflict Diamonds Fund Civil Wars in Africa
There is no reliable way to insure that your diamond was not mined or stolen by government or rebel military forces in order to finance civil conflict. Conflict diamonds are traded either for guns or for cash to pay and feed soldiers.
9. Diamond Wars are Fought Using Child Warriors
Many diamond producing governments and rebel forces use children as soldiers, laborers in military camps, and sex slaves. Child soldiers are given drugs to overcome their fear and reluctance to participate in atrocities.
10. Small Arms Trade is Intimately Related to Diamond Smuggling
Illicit diamonds inflame the clandestine trade of small arms. There are 500 million small arms in the world today which are used to kill 500,000 people annually, the vast majority of whom are non-combatants.
I think you over rate this so called social pressure. I have seen many a soon to be groom beam at the thought of providing his new wife with a diamond.
You don't like them we have established that. It doesn't give you the right to insult all those that do by calling them or me (since I buy them) idiots and schmucks. If you don't want to buy your wife a diamond and that is ok with her, that is yours and hers business. But don't insult those who choose to show their love by purchasing diamonds for one another.
I am sure there are things you spend your money on that a lot of people here would consider a waste of money as well. Live and let live. Have a nice day, with or without diamonds.
I refer you back to your post #112. Please heed your own advice on insulting others!
Correction: I refer you back to your post #112. Please heed your own advice on insulting others!
OK, one more time: I refer you back to your post #145. Please heed your own advice on insulting others!
You don`t need real ones, the fakes will fool anyone anytime unless it`s some expert looking close.
The only real use diamonds have is for industrial purposes, cutting tools, record players... other than that, all you are doing is wasting a ton of cash on a freaking rock that will never sell for more than what you paid (unless you find a willing sucker).
It`s the ultimate pet rock scheme. If you promote something enough, people will buy anything.
I didn't insult you. You began by insulting everyone that is purchasing diamonds and brought in the tradition of diamonds as wedding rings. You should not insult the majority of married couples in this country and not expect to take any flack for it. You could have expressed your opinion without calling all those who chose to buy diamonds names. Or could you??? I have my doubts. Have a nice day.
Ok, ONE MORE TIME!!!! Don't insult a very large group of people and expect not to take flack for it.
I'm going to challenge you to prove that statement Spectre. It's absolute nonsense. There's only one source in the world for the blue zoisite known as Tanzanite: the Merelani Hills of Tanzania. There has been no civil war in TZ since Tiffany & Co. introduced the stone in the 1970s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.