# Blood diamonds? Question.



## daekini (Jun 17, 2004)

So, I already have a diamond engagement ring







and I'm feeling guilty though it was given to me by dh 7 years ago.

Should I stop wearing it? It's almost a part of me at this point, I can't even remember when I last took it off. What should I do?


----------



## Sonya77 (Feb 20, 2007)

Honestly, I would think unless it's a huge honkin' rock, I wouldn't worry about it being a conflict diamond. With the new protocols set in place in 2000, I don't think it would be worth the trafficker's time to ship out teensy things. Where did your DH get it? Did he get a warranty or guarantee? If it's bought second-hand, it's pretty much impossible to tell.

If you have no way of finding out, and you are worried about it, make a donation to the UN or something. Your husband bought you that ring to signify his love; don't let "might be"s tarnish the way you look at it.

My humble $0.02.


----------



## HeatherRD (Oct 22, 2007)

What's wrong with diamonds? We almost never watch the News, so I must have missed something...


----------



## Phantaja (Oct 10, 2006)

I'd continue to wear it. There's not a whole lot that can be done at this point anymore, except for being more careful in the future. Personally, I'm a huge fan of moissanite

Heather, looking at the links in my sig is a start.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

i would wear it but make sure you let others know that you dont wish to receive any more diamonds as gifts if it bothers you.

I dont wear diamonds at all.


----------



## alexsam (May 10, 2005)

If it helps, many places will trade in diamonds for "new" ones... Like, my husband got my ring at Tiffany's (I know







- but it is really pretty







) and they have a program that if you want to "upgrade" you can give them back the ring, they put that diamond's worth toward another and you can request a non-conflict diamond to be exhanged for your "old" diamond and it is reset in the same ring. I'm sure that other stores must do this too.

Of course, it doesn't change what happened, the diamond's history, potential resale, or any of that. But it DOES show that you made a positive change, you are making a concious choice as a consumer, your new choice will contribute to an understanding by the industry for ethical diamonds, and your new ring will be something to be proud of.

As soon as my husband and I finish our grad degrees, I'm all about trading my diamond in. To be fair, at the time he bought it, the situation regarding African diamonds was not well known, and certainly not known to us. But I figure my statement on it is better late than never... In the meantime, I wear my ring and if anything, it reminds me of the responsibility I have as a "wealthy consumer", in particular of luxury goods.


----------



## Mama2Bug (Feb 18, 2005)

I didn't know how ugly the diamond trade was/is when DH and I got engaged, so I have a really lovely diamond ring, but no idea where it came from.







I do wear it and love the symbolism of it as a token of love from DH. I reconcile it by actively staying abreast of Africa's problems and doing whatever I can to help, whether it be activism or donations. I will never knowingly own another diamond unless I am 100% sure it was mined ethically.

It isn't much, but it's what I can do.


----------



## daekini (Jun 17, 2004)

Thanks for the comments... I'll keep wearing this one I guess. We got it in... '00 maybe?

I won't be getting any new diamonds, though.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Where did he get it from? It really depends on the company. For example, Tiffany & Co. does not sell gemstones or metals mined in such a fashion. (A good thing to know... you know, when I have a spare $20K to spend on a pair of earrings







)


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Tiffany's gets their materials from the same sources as many of your local jewelers. Support your local jewelers- they can work with your specifications (ethical as well as design) in a way that mass produced jewelry can not. The trade-up is also offered by many independent jewelers, so check with someone local.


----------



## Vito's Mommy (Jan 19, 2005)

I have been considering selling my wedding set and getting a ring made w/moissanite. My cousin who lived in NB and worked in a fine jewelry store, and I in CA designed my ring over the phone and on line. Honestly, I like it but don't love it. Can't send it back for obvious reasons. I also heard Dutchess Fergie promoting her Moissanite line a while back and looked into it. In the meantime, Blood Diamond came out and I really considered selling it! Gave me an out and opened my eyes.

Phantaja, what do you think of this statement? I found it in your link in the comments area. Not arguing by any means, just looking for food for thought and education on the subject. If I switch to Moissanite, I'll really have to know wth I'm talking about w/my wonderful, mainstream fam









"I'm new to the blood diamond issue. I have a human rights background, but admit to be having some trouble wrapping my brain around some of the issues involved with blood diamonds. In particular, I'm pondering the situation where the "forces or factions opposed to legitimate and internationally recognized governments" happen to have legitimate grievances. Especially in Africa where so many of the countries have atrociously bad human rights records (and in many cases can hardly be said to have legitimate governments) , what is so bad about rebel groups opposing abusive governments using diamonds to try to overthrow those governments. I guess what I am saying is that so many of the sovereign countries use income from diamonds - not to mention oil and other resources - to abuse their citizens that it seems unfair that the blood diamond community should be targeting the rebels. Do you really feel that a rebel group fighting for survival against a Idi Amin- or Bokassa-type dictator should not be allowed to use diamond or other natural resource income to finance their insurgencies? I have followed African politics for many years and am just not convinced that many of the "legitimate" governments are any less bestial that many of the rebel groups. Similarly with oil, do you really want to protect the thuggish rulers of places like Sudan and Equatorial Guinea but cutting off the natural resource income of groups opposing them? In many cases, the "blood" in "blood diamonds" appears to be generated not by the rebel groups, but by legitimate governments. The situation seems to be similar with oil. Why not go after a country like Saudi Arabia. After all, rich Saudis used their riches primarily generated from oil to finance 9/11. All I'm saying is that as you say, "things are never as simple as they usually seem to be."


----------



## Kajira (May 23, 2006)

Ok I have to say it, loved the movie but the movie was a couple of years too late as usual, blood diamonds are already on the market there's no way to go back and check which are or aren't clean, not that the companies that supply would tell anyway, so as far as the law is concerned they are all clean, that said.

It's better to buy a diamond now, look for countries like Botswana which co-own their mines and use the money to pay for HIV meds, and other projects that benefit their country no funding wars just schools.
Many others trade mark their diamonds, Canada, Graff diamonds (even more pricey than Tiffany sorry to say but they own their mines).
It's also worthwhile to note Sierra Leone and Congo are now members of the Kimberly Process, and these countries need the trade of diamonds to help rebuild desperately.
If you research carefully you can find companies that pride themselves in clean diamonds.


----------



## Vito's Mommy (Jan 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Vito's Mommy* 
Phantaja, what do you think of this statement?

"I'm new to the blood diamond issue. I have a human rights background, but admit to be having some trouble wrapping my brain around some of the issues involved with blood diamonds. In particular, I'm pondering the situation where the "forces or factions opposed to legitimate and internationally recognized governments" happen to have legitimate grievances. Especially in Africa where so many of the countries have atrociously bad human rights records (and in many cases can hardly be said to have legitimate governments) , what is so bad about rebel groups opposing abusive governments using diamonds to try to overthrow those governments. I guess what I am saying is that so many of the sovereign countries use income from diamonds - not to mention oil and other resources - to abuse their citizens that it seems unfair that the blood diamond community should be targeting the rebels. Do you really feel that a rebel group fighting for survival against a Idi Amin- or Bokassa-type dictator should not be allowed to use diamond or other natural resource income to finance their insurgencies? I have followed African politics for many years and am just not convinced that many of the "legitimate" governments are any less bestial that many of the rebel groups. Similarly with oil, do you really want to protect the thuggish rulers of places like Sudan and Equatorial Guinea but cutting off the natural resource income of groups opposing them? In many cases, the "blood" in "blood diamonds" appears to be generated not by the rebel groups, but by legitimate governments. The situation seems to be similar with oil. Why not go after a country like Saudi Arabia. After all, rich Saudis used their riches primarily generated from oil to finance 9/11. All I'm saying is that as you say, "things are never as simple as they usually seem to be."

I didn't mean to only ask only one persons opinion. Sorry, it's been a loooong day of homeschooling and cleaning out cupboards. I was simply acknowledging her great site and looking for insight


----------



## Phantaja (Oct 10, 2006)

Hmmm...What do I think of it? In reading a statement like that, on the surface, I do agree with the poster. It's not always the rebel groups for which the blood is shed. But do the ends justify the means? Just because the enemy isn't who we may or may not think it is, doesn't change the fact that people are dying to mine our little sparklies. Children lose limbs, people are murdered in cold blood to get their hands on the stones.

Quite frankly, I'd feel the same way if it were anything, the fact that diamonds are causing loss of life and limb doesn't disturb me any more or less than if it were anything else. Lotion. Hair ties. Socks with hearts and flowers on them. It doesn't matter, the fact is that no human being should have to die to make me feel pretty.

Believe it or not, my primary issue is not the fact that the profits from the diamonds are being used to fund war. If not for diamonds, they'd find another way. I'm concerned with the fact that, with regard to conflict stones, life means so much less than carbon.


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

I know this is an old thread, but thought I'd mention this since it wasn't mentioned above. You can donate your diamonds at Diamonds for Africa Fund and the money will go to helping communities in Africa affected by the conflict diamond trade.


----------



## daekini (Jun 17, 2004)

Thank you for the link.

I ordered new rings to be made by someone I found on ETSY, and currently I'm wearing those, and have put the diamond aside. I'm having a hard time completely letting go of something I've worn for years, given to me by my love....


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

I can understand that. For me, I never really felt fully attached to my diamond set, and now that my DH had a ring made for me for our anniversary, I wear that, and I'm going to donate my diamond ring.


----------



## S.Raine-Drop (Apr 5, 2008)

Wait.. so, people are refusing to buy diamonds, and giving their diamonds away, because they could have come from a deadly situation? So like, people were killed in order to get and sell them? I am SUPER confused.. I didn't see this movie, and those links that were apparently in your sig, Phantaja, are no longer there..


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BabyBlanketGawki* 
Wait.. so, people are refusing to buy diamonds, and giving their diamonds away, because they could have come from a deadly situation? So like, people were killed in order to get and sell them? I am SUPER confused.. I didn't see this movie, and those links that were apparently in your sig, Phantaja, are no longer there..

Conflict (or blood) diamonds are diamonds that fund wars, and came mostly from the wars in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone (which is the country depicted in "Blood Diamond"). Rebels seized diamond territories in those countries and the profits from those sales funded the war. While those wars were happening, rebel stones made up about 15 percent of the world's diamond trade. The war in Sierra Leone ended in 2002. Now conflict diamonds are not as common, but are funding the war on the Ivory Coast. Diamonds purchased in the late nineties and early part of this decade are the most likely ones to be conflict diamonds, although there is no way to tell.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

If someone has a "blood diamond" engagement ring (or whatever), it does absolutely no good to donate it or sell it. Because that ring is still OUT THERE, being ogled by people, and being worn in spite of its suspicious provenance. If it really bugs you, you should not only demolish it, but you should also donate the EXACT amount you paid for your rings to a charity that helps the people hurt by the bad mining practices.

But, um... if you're like most sane people you might want to consider just changing your habits moving FORWARD, kwim? I mean, the money has already been given to the wrong people for the wrong cause... now you have a diamond someone toiled to get loose from the mine just for your ring... either wear it with pride and get on with it, or obliterate the thing completely. I just totally don't get this theory that selling your diamond on eBay and buying ethically mined and WAHM-forged silver instead is doing anybody any favors (other than the WAHM of course).


----------



## emaye_to_2 (Jan 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *odenata* 
I know this is an old thread, but thought I'd mention this since it wasn't mentioned above. You can donate your diamonds at Diamonds for Africa Fund and the money will go to helping communities in Africa affected by the conflict diamond trade.

This thread is of great interest to me as well. I've been thinking that there must be a way to donate your diamond to assist those African countries. Thanks for the opinions here.


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle* 
If someone has a "blood diamond" engagement ring (or whatever), it does absolutely no good to donate it or sell it. Because that ring is still OUT THERE, being ogled by people, and being worn in spite of its suspicious provenance. If it really bugs you, you should not only demolish it, but you should also donate the EXACT amount you paid for your rings to a charity that helps the people hurt by the bad mining practices.

But, um... if you're like most sane people you might want to consider just changing your habits moving FORWARD, kwim? I mean, the money has already been given to the wrong people for the wrong cause... now you have a diamond someone toiled to get loose from the mine just for your ring... either wear it with pride and get on with it, or obliterate the thing completely. I just totally don't get this theory that selling your diamond on eBay and buying ethically mined and WAHM-forged silver instead is doing anybody any favors (other than the WAHM of course).

I don't agree with you here. If I donate a diamond that is not documented conflict-free (really, it's impossible to know it's a conflict diamond for certain), it does two positives, to my mind. One, it sends money back to the African communities that were the victims of the conflict diamond trade. And two, it now goes to a buyer who knows their money is not going to support a war.

I don't really see what difference it makes that it's still "out there...being ogled." If I buy a Gap t-shirt from a thrift store my money isn't supporting Gap, and that new buyer's money didn't go to support a war. I suppose you could make an argument that wearing said shirt promotes Gap, and that may be true, but it wouldn't really apply with diamonds, as the current diamond market has less than 1% conflict diamonds and it is easy to get a non-conflict diamond, so promoting diamonds in general is not really an issue.

I fail to see how trying to correct a decision you now regret puts your sanity into question, as you imply in your post.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

1.
The PROBLEM is that people want diamonds. Diamonds are associated with love and commitment. The bigger the rock, the more he loves you. Oooh ahhh how many carats? The marketing has been brilliant. So if people wanted to stop supporitng these practices, you need to eliminate the demand for diamonds. Which giving your ring to someone else does not do. You get to sleep easy wearing your new band, but someone else is still out there wearing your diamond for the next 60 years with millions of people looking at it over their lifetime alone.

2. You have already given money to these people, already supported the blood diamonds etc. The damage is DONE. There is nothing you can do to take that away or undo it. The only thing you can do is a.) pay them back (which still won't really undo what has already been done), or b.) moving forward change your spending habits. I'm a huge fan of the latter.

***********

Think of it like the fur trade. Say you bought a mink stole. You wore it for awhile and then you learned more about the fur industry. You feel for the minks and you don't want to wear it anymore. So you buy a polar fleece jacket instead and you give/sell your mink stole to someone else. Um... how exactly is this helping the fur trade? The furrier has already made his money thanks to you. PLUS now you have someone who actually DOES love fur wandering around wearing a dead animal as high fashion for the rest of time, thereby continuing to demonstrate it's something desirable to do. If you wanted to save a mink, you should have just burned the damn thing and given the amount you paid for the mink stole to PETA (or whomever).


----------



## S.Raine-Drop (Apr 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle* 
1.
The PROBLEM is that people want diamonds. Diamonds are associated with love and commitment. The bigger the rock, the more he loves you. Oooh ahhh how many carats? The marketing has been brilliant. So if people wanted to stop supporitng these practices, you need to eliminate the demand for diamonds. Which giving your ring to someone else does not do. You get to sleep easy wearing your new band, but someone else is still out there wearing your diamond for the next 60 years with millions of people looking at it over their lifetime alone.

2. You have already given money to these people, already supported the blood diamonds etc. The damage is DONE. There is nothing you can do to take that away or undo it. The only thing you can do is a.) pay them back (which still won't really undo what has already been done), or b.) moving forward change your spending habits. I'm a huge fan of the latter.

***********

*Think of it like the fur trade. Say you bought a mink stole. You wore it for awhile and then you learned more about the fur industry. You feel for the minks and you don't want to wear it anymore. So you buy a polar fleece jacket instead and you give/sell your mink stole to someone else. Um... how exactly is this helping the fur trade? The furrier has already made his money thanks to you. PLUS now you have someone who actually DOES love fur wandering around wearing a dead animal as high fashion for the rest of time, thereby continuing to demonstrate it's something desirable to do. If you wanted to save a mink, you should have just burned the damn thing and given the amount you paid for the mink stole to PETA (or whomever).*











Heres to THAT


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle* 
Think of it like the fur trade. Say you bought a mink stole. You wore it for awhile and then you learned more about the fur industry. You feel for the minks and you don't want to wear it anymore. So you buy a polar fleece jacket instead and you give/sell your mink stole to someone else. Um... how exactly is this helping the fur trade? The furrier has already made his money thanks to you. PLUS now you have someone who actually DOES love fur wandering around wearing a dead animal as high fashion for the rest of time, thereby continuing to demonstrate it's something desirable to do. If you wanted to save a mink, you should have just burned the damn thing and given the amount you paid for the mink stole to PETA (or whomever).

Except that people who are against fur are against the very concept of fur. As I said, I'm not against the diamond industry in general. There are fair trade ethically mined and produced diamonds, such as those coming from Canada.

I get your point, I just don't agree with it, because I don't have a problem with people wearing diamonds, as long as they came from an ethical source, and those are available. And I do think that "conflict-neutral diamonds" (already bought diamonds whose source are unknown and their sales profits go back to supporting Africa) are a good idea. Yes, the damage has been done, but people can do their best to mitigate that once they have more knowledge.

There is one way I think the diamond/fur comparison works, and that is in how one can make good from bad. Many against fur don't advocate destroying furs, but instead donate the fur coats they get to the homeless (PETA does this, among others). If you create something good (whether that good is funds for Africa or warmth for homeless people) from something bad, I see no reason not to do it.

And then, yes, you do go forward with more knowledge about how your choices affect others and change your practices.


----------



## SAHDS (Mar 28, 2008)

DH and I work with a smaller jeweler who buys his diamonds directly and works closely with the Kimberly Process. That way, we know where they come from and what they are supporting. Of course, nothing is for absolute certain, but you have to do the best you can.

I am not a fan of Moissanite; I think it looks cheap and tacky.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SAHDS* 
DH and I work with a smaller jeweler who buys his diamonds directly and works closely with the Kimberly Process. That way, we know where they come from and what they are supporting. Of course, nothing is for absolute certain, but you have to do the best you can.

I am not a fan of Moissanite; I think it looks cheap and tacky.











I feel the same way about diamonds!!


----------



## SAHDS (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almadianna* 









I feel the same way about diamonds!!









You feel that diamonds look cheap and tacky...?


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SAHDS* 
You feel that diamonds look cheap and tacky...?

yup.
not cheap necessarily but tacky yes. awfully tacky.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

How can something natural be tacky? Serious question. It's like saying a dogwood tree is tacky or red coral is tacky or oak leaves are tacky. I mean... they just ARE. So are you saying you don't like diamonds because they cost a lot of money? If diamonds were as cheap as oak leaves, would that make it better? In other words, doesn't the tackiness of the diamond have to do with its cost rather than its look?


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle* 
How can something natural be tacky? Serious question. It's like saying a dogwood tree is tacky or red coral is tacky or oak leaves are tacky. I mean... they just ARE. So are you saying you don't like diamonds because they cost a lot of money? If diamonds were as cheap as oak leaves, would that make it better? In other words, doesn't the tackiness of the diamond have to do with its cost rather than its look?

oh no i never said that... i couldnt care less about how much they cost.
i just dont like diamonds and to me they look tacky.
just because nature created it doesnt mean we all have to like it... some people dont like seafood and others dont like tobacco.

I just find the whole idea and principle behind diamonds to be tacky and I dont like them one bit.
If they were cheap it wouldnt make them any better. just cheaper.

for me the tackiness has to do with the attitude behind it, apart from the fact that I personally dont find them appealing.

I am annoyed by the "diamonds are a girls best friend" thing. I am really annoyed by the idea that engagement rings have to be these huge diamonds that are 3 months of your salary. I just dont like them.

I find them tacky just like the person above finds moissanite tacky....


----------

