On Diamonds

[Lynne]

For the past two and half years, I have taken public transportation whenever possible and only rented a vehicle when it was more-or-less necessary.

I recycle and am conscientious of my food packaging and its origins.

I think I'm doing my part, and I am always on the lookout for other ways to reduce my own carbon footprint on the planet.

[Luvlylittlewing]

We're seeing AVATAR this week, and although I think I know what it's about, I've not done any additional reading.

I agree that BLOOD DIAMOND was somewhat forumulaic, but nonetheless, I found it very powerful.  I can't imagine myself ever owning another diamond and I keep entertaining thoughts of getting rid of the ones I have and making donations to an appropriate charity.  

I can't imagine ever wanting another diamond and being thrilled about it the way I was my first one, when I was innocent of how that market operates and exploits.

I have (had) lots of diamonds, not just because I love the way they look, but because they're my birthstone.  These days I don't buy real diamonds because of the human rights issue, but also because CZs look better than actual diamonds, cost much less, are often set in real gold and no one can tell the difference between my real stones and my CZs.

Wearing diamonds has long been a status thing in the black community.  I have a cousin who flashes her diamond rings wherever she goes.  We loved to sit around and compare the size of the diamonds on our hands, in our ears, on our wrists.  One of my uncles wore icy diamond rings on every other finger (I hate diamonds on men) but he took them off when he learned what his people go through to produce those stones.  We're beginning to wake up, I believe.

Oh, I loved Avatar.  I saw it twice and am considering seeing it in 3D.  I love the spirit of the film and celebrate the message.

[serious crayons]

OK, but I don't see that.  In a recession, no one is giving up their old cars to buy expensive hybrids.

Fewer people, but not no one:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/sales/

Reported US Hybrid Sales Up 42% in December, Down 7.5% for CY 2009; New Vehicle Market Share of 2.8% for CY 2009
January 07, 2010


Top: Reported sales of US hybrids in 2009 resulted in a 2.8% new vehicle market share. Bottom left: relative new vehicle share of hybrid and non-hybrid vehicles. Bottom right: Unit sales of hybrid and non-hybrid vehicles.

People are buying cheap foods, local produce is limited in winter and why spend the gas to drive to a farmer's market when the grocery store is 5 blocks away?

From Wikipedia:

In the U.S. and Canada, due in part to the increased interest in healthier foods, a greater desire to preserve local types of cultivars or livestock (some of which may not be up to commercial shipping or yield standards) and an increased understanding of the importance of maintaining small, sustainable farms on the fringe of urban environments, farmers' markets in the US have grown from 1,755 in 1994 to 4,385 in 2006 [2] to 5,274 in 2009. [3] In New York City, there are currently 44 markets in operation fitting this description. Scattered across all five boroughs, each market supports farmers as far away as New England, selling produce, meat, breads, pies, cheeses, honey, and shellfish for consumption and even allot some time for seasonal items, like orders for Thanksgiving turkeys and wreaths for Christmas. In the Los Angeles area, 88 farmers' markets exist, many of which support Hispanic and Asian fare.

New markets appear regularly, and existing markets—some well over a century old—are seeing renewed growth in both North America and Europe.

But also, you do know it is possible to make an effort, right there at the grocery store, to buy produce that's either local or more local, right? For instance, I can't find a huge amount of Minnesota produce at the grocery store in January, but I can distinguish between USA-produced and imported. And in warmer months, plenty of produce is labeled Minnesota-grown. And I would assume stores in warmer states offer some local produce throughout much of the year.

 If you are lucky enough to have a thermostat and central air (the majority of houses in my mother's neigthborhood, including hers do not)

In much of the country, the thermostat is there to control the heat, not air-conditioning. Here in Minnesota, you need one to stay alive. But people do lower them. And Sun-Belt dwellers who don't have central air ARE helping reduce oil consumption.

people are turning them down to save money, not to protest human rights abuses.

Right. I would guess "protest human rights abuses" is not at the top of the list of reasons for most people's energy-reduction efforts. Doesn't mean it doesn't have that effect.

Someone does buy the diamonds, but not enough to make much of an impact, IMO, in the fight against human rights violations.

Hunh? If the industry practices human-rights violations and then WHOEVER is supporting the industry stops buying its products -- whether it's 30 people or 30 million, doesn't matter; its whatever size market the industry relies on -- then the industry fails, and whatever human-rights violations were going on in that industry are no longer being committed by those people in that way. Or, if the industry realizes that is its problem, it will feel pressure to end the violations to avoid collapse.

Apparently you're saying the violations associated with the diamond industry do not constitute a significant enough percentage of the world's human-rights violations overall to bother about. But that's like saying, why boycott Company X for some objectionable practice -- there are a lot of other companies doing objectionable things, so even if Company X goes out of business it won't end objectionable practices overall? Why make any effort for the good if it doesn't solve all problems entirely? Obviously very few reform efforts have the effect of making everybody live happily ever after; they just chip away at some portion of a larger problem.

 I think it's an empty gesture for most people.  The people who might make the biggest impact on blood diamonds are the buyers - not the retail buyers - the DeBeers people, the Cartier people.  Have them cut off buying such gemstones and a difference might be made.

And you don't think the habits of the retail-buying public have anything to do with what DeBeers and Cartier do?? Are they just accumulating diamonds for their own use? That's like saying whether the public buys Priuses or not is immaterial -- it's what the dealerships do that has the most impact.

[delalluvia]

Fewer people, but not no one:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/sales/

Reported US Hybrid Sales Up 42% in December, Down 7.5% for CY 2009; New Vehicle Market Share of 2.8% for CY 2009
January 07, 2010


Top: Reported sales of US hybrids in 2009 resulted in a 2.8% new vehicle market share. Bottom left: relative new vehicle share of hybrid and non-hybrid vehicles. Bottom right: Unit sales of hybrid and non-hybrid vehicles.

Eh, stats and more stats.  If one is sold in 2008 and two are sold in 2009, that's a 100% increase in sales! 

But also, you do know it is possible to make an effort, right there at the grocery store, to buy produce that's either local or more local, right? For instance, I can't find a huge amount of Minnesota produce at the grocery store in January, but I can distinguish between USA-produced and imported. And in warmer months, plenty of produce is labeled Minnesota-grown. And I would assume stores in warmer states offer some local produce throughout much of the year.

This is Texas, we grow cotton and sorghum here.  Not very tasty.     Only in summer do you see the flourishing farmer's markets full of summer produce.  And since we're so close to Mexico...fresh produce you can't buy local in winter here is available from there. [shrug]

In much of the country, the thermostat is there to control the heat, not air-conditioning. Here in Minnesota, you need one to stay alive. But people do lower them. And Sun-Belt dwellers who don't have central air ARE helping reduce oil consumption.

Not really.  In the Sunbelt, those who don't have central air, use gas heaters or electrical space heaters.  In the summer, air-conditioning is a necessity.  People die from heat exhaustion.

Hunh? If the industry practices human-rights violations and then WHOEVER is supporting the industry stops buying its products -- whether it's 30 people or 30 million, doesn't matter; its whatever size market the industry relies on -- then the industry fails, and whatever human-rights violations were going on in that industry are no longer being committed by those people in that way. Or, if the industry realizes that is its problem, it will feel pressure to end the violations to avoid collapse.

Apparently you're saying the violations associated with the diamond industry do not constitute a significant enough percentage of the world's human-rights violations overall to bother about. But that's like saying, why boycott Company X for some objectionable practice -- there are a lot of other companies doing objectionable things, so even if Company X goes out of business it won't end objectionable practices overall? Why make any effort for the good if it doesn't solve all problems entirely? Obviously very few reform efforts have the effect of making everybody live happily ever after; they just chip away at some portion of a larger problem.

It is, but it's like ignoring the mountain and focusing on the molehill.

You dismissed my point about human rights violations being just as horrific with oil producing countries with

"Oh but we need that"

and then went on about diamonds.  To me that's a big    That's a HUGE issue and a HUGE area we could be focusing on, but people are getting hung up about diamonds?  A shiny rock that mostly the affluent buy and just as a luxury item?

Do you see any hip hop artists not buying diamonds?  I think P-Diddy has several lovely pieces just encrusted with diamonds.  Did you catch the awards show last night?  Nice jewelry, eh?

Obviously not buying Blood Diamonds was just a passing issue with most people.  Until the people who matter - the buyers - care about this issue, it doesn't make any difference to those who buy them.

[serious crayons]

Eh, stats and more stats.  If one is sold in 2008 and two are sold in 2009, that's a 100% increase in sales!  

Well, you said no one was buying them. Market figures -- yup, "stats and more stats" -- show that, in fact, more people are buying them. More than two, actually.

 And since we're so close to Mexico...fresh produce you can't buy local in winter here is available from there.

So there you go. If you're close to Mexico, then the produce isn't being shipped very far to get there, right? Mission accomplished.

Not really.  In the Sunbelt, those who don't have central air, use gas heaters or electrical space heaters.  In the summer, air-conditioning is a necessity.  People die from heat exhaustion.

Sure. I have lived in the Sun Belt (without central air, in fact) and am aware of this. But I don't see how it supports your point about how people should stop using oil. On the contrary, it sounds like, um, what I said about it being almost impossible to avoid using any oil.

It is, but it's like ignoring the mountain and focusing on the molehill.

Nope. It's like realizing that if you dismiss any molehill-sized effort as pointless because it doesn't take down the whole mountain, then the mountain and all of the molehills are likely to stand undisturbed.

You dismissed my point about human rights violations being just as horrific with oil producing countries with

"Oh but we need that"

Um, Del, you'd better go back and reread my earlier posts before you turn me into some kind of apologist for the oil industry, energy hogs and wars in the Middle East. What I actually said was that it's nearly impossible to use no oil, but that people most certainly are making many many laudable efforts to use less. I also pointed out that it's perfectly possible to use less oil AND buy fewer diamonds, simultaneously -- the two efforts are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would guess that the people doing one are among those potentially most likely to also do the other.

and then went on about diamonds

And while you're at it, you might want to check out the title of this thread.

To me that's a big    That's a HUGE issue and a HUGE area we could be focusing on, but people are getting hung up about diamonds?  A shiny rock that mostly the affluent buy and just as a luxury item?

Do you see any hip hop artists not buying diamonds?  I think P-Diddy has several lovely pieces just encrusted with diamonds.  Did you catch the awards show last night?  Nice jewelry, eh?

OK, so what does that have to do with anything? On the one hand, you're saying reducing diamond purchases won't have enough effect on human-rights abuses overall. On the other hand, you're dragging in hip-hop artists -- whom you suggest couldn't possibly be aware of this controversy or participating in it, as if you'd surveyed the entire hip-hop community and found that there are none "not buying diamonds." And you imply that this supports some point. Which is, what, that nobody should bother reducing their diamond purchases because there will always be a ready supply of hip-hop artists to take their places? I'm just guessing; once again I am having trouble connecting your arguments to any overall point.

not buying Blood Diamonds was just a passing issue with most people.

How do you know this? People don't buy diamonds very often. So they probably don't see the movie and then immediately purchase -- or not purchase -- a diamond. But three years later, they could be getting engaged, on a roll in their hip-hop career, or whatever, and thinking about buying a diamond. But then, remembering what they learned in that movie, reconsider their plans.

 Until the people who matter - the buyers - care about this issue, it doesn't make any difference to those who buy them.

Again, if fewer consumer buy diamonds, then the "people who matter -- the buyers" sure as hell DO care. How do you suppose industries operate? I work part time at Macy's. The store buys clothes and other products and then sells them to consumers. If consumers stop buying anything that Macy's sells, how do you suppose Macy's will be affected? If Macy's managers and buyers reassure themselves that it doesn't matter what retail customers do because they -- the buyers -- are the people "who matter," how long will Macy's stay in business?

I'm sorry, Del, but whatever it is you're trying to get at here, I'm not following.

[delalluvia]

Well, you said no one was buying them. Market figures -- yup, "stats and more stats" -- show that, in fact, more people are buying them. More than two, actually.

Depends on your area.  Don't see a lot of hybrids over here in the low income part of town.  Don't see any, actually.  Do see lots of pick up trucks though.

So there you go. If you're close to Mexico, then the produce isn't being shipped very far to get there, right? Mission accomplished.

Mexico is local to you?  From my location it's over 500 miles away.  I don't consider that local.

Sure. I have lived in the Sun Belt (without central air, in fact) and am aware of this. But I don't see how it supports your point about how people should stop using oil. On the contrary, it sounds like, um, what I said about it being almost impossible to avoid using any oil.

No, I'm merely pointing out that stopping the usage of oil as a protest against human rights violaters would be more meaningful than not buying a trinket because oil is much more of a necessity.

Nope. It's like realizing that if you dismiss any molehill-sized effort as pointless because it doesn't take down the whole mountain, then the mountain and all of the molehills are likely to stand undisturbed.

You can start filling in the Grand Canyon with a child's shovel and generations will pass before any good comes of it.  Not very practical.  I'd suggest remedies that are more timely and effective.

Um, Del, you'd better go back and reread my earlier posts before you turn me into some kind of apologist for the oil industry, energy hogs and wars in the Middle East. What I actually said was that it's nearly impossible to use no oil, but that people most certainly are making many many laudable efforts to use less. I also pointed out that it's perfectly possible to use less oil AND buy fewer diamonds, simultaneously -- the two efforts are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would guess that the people doing one are among those potentially most likely to also do the other.

Well, here is where we disagree.  Grand Canyon and child's beach shovel.

And while you're at it, you might want to check out the title of this thread.

I didn't name this thread.

OK, so what does that have to do with anything? On the one hand, you're saying reducing diamond purchases won't have enough effect on human-rights abuses overall. On the other hand, you're dragging in hip-hop artists -- whom you suggest couldn't possibly be aware of this controversy or participating in it, as if you'd surveyed the entire hip-hop community and found that there are none "not buying diamonds." And you imply that this supports some point. Which is, what, that nobody should bother reducing their diamond purchases because there will always be a ready supply of hip-hop artists to take their places? I'm just guessing; once again I am having trouble connecting your arguments to any overall point.

How do you know this? People don't buy diamonds very often.

Bingo.  You just made my point.  People don't buy diamonds very often.  And then only those who can afford it do.  So again, it's not much of a sacrifice toward the human rights issue to sacrifice by not buying them.

IMO, it's like some Catholic person giving up buying diamonds for Lent.  

Do they buy diamonds that often?

No, not at all.

Then it's not much of a sacrifice, is it?

So they probably don't see the movie and then immediately purchase -- or not purchase -- a diamond. But three years later, they could be getting engaged, on a roll in their hip-hop career, or whatever, and thinking about buying a diamond. But then, remembering what they learned in that movie, reconsider their plans.

Do you really think many people will remember the movie Blood Diamond, a mediocre, fomulaic movie years from now?

Again, if fewer consumer buy diamonds, then the "people who matter -- the buyers" sure as hell DO care. How do you suppose industries operate? I work part time at Macy's. The store buys clothes and other products and then sells them to consumers. If consumers stop buying anything that Macy's sells, how do you suppose Macy's will be affected? If Macy's managers and buyers reassure themselves that it doesn't matter what retail customers do because they -- the buyers -- are the people "who matter," how long will Macy's stay in business?

Who makes more of an impact in the non-purchase of blood diamonds?  Joe Citizen and his fiance Jane buying a solitaire or the COO of De Beers?

[serious crayons]

Depends on your area.  Don't see a lot of hybrids over here in the low income part of town.  Don't see any, actually.  Do see lots of pick up trucks though.

Well, see, that's where "stats and more stats" come in. That way you don't have to rely entirely on what you happen to see around your neighborhood. It's a big country, Del. Lots of different kinds of neighborhoods.

Mexico is local to you?  From my location it's over 500 miles away.  I don't consider that local.

Hmm. Let's review. You said

since we're so close to Mexico...fresh produce you can't buy local in winter here is available from there. [shrug]

So I said

If you're close to Mexico, then the produce isn't being shipped very far to get there, right? Mission accomplished

Eating in a way designed to save energy is partly about eating what's geographically closest -- it's not about what country it's from. If certain produce is out of season in Texas, but available in Mexico, it's more local to eat that stuff than what's shipped from Chile. (It actually gets more complicated than that, but I'm not going to go into the complications for fear they will steer us even further off topic than this Mexico/local thing already has.)
 

No, I'm merely pointing out that stopping the usage of oil as a protest against human rights violaters would be more meaningful than not buying a trinket because oil is much more of a necessity.

Fine. No argument here. But again, the two are not mutually exclusive. What you're saying is like, volunteering to teach in a low-income school would be more meaningful than writing a check at a school fundraiser. So therefore, don't write a check at the fundraiser.

You can start filling in the Grand Canyon with a child's shovel and generations will pass before any good comes of it.  Not very practical.  I'd suggest remedies that are more timely and effective.

Fine. If, to you, having everyone in the United States suddenly stop all use of oil seems not only "timely and effective" but practical and possible, go for it. I'm not trying to prevent you, god knows.

I didn't name this thread.

You're participating in it. And to scornfully say that I "went on about diamonds" on a thread titled "On Diamonds" seems a little out of line.

Bingo.  You just made my point.  People don't buy diamonds very often.  And then only those who can afford it do.  So again, it's not much of a sacrifice toward the human rights issue to sacrifice by not buying them.

Whoever claimed it was "much of a sacrifice"? We're talking about it as something people may consider doing if they support the issue. Not about whether to elevate those who do it to sainthood.

IMO, it's like some Catholic person giving up buying diamonds for Lent.  

OK. So?

Then it's not much of a sacrifice, is it?

Please show me where I or anyone claimed it is some giant sacrifice.

Do you really think many people will remember the movie Blood Diamond, a mediocre, fomulaic movie years from now?

Yes, people may forget plot points but I do think most viewers will retain its main point: that some -- not all -- diamonds are obtained in a way that adds to human misery.

Who makes more of an impact in the non-purchase of blood diamonds?  Joe Citizen and his fiance Jane buying a solitaire or the COO of De Beers?

We've now gone over and over how production and sales businesses work, and if you're still not getting it I guess I'm running out of things to say. Consumers like Joe and Jane have an impact because De Beers depends on their business. One couple's actions have, realistically, no impact. But if all the Joes and Janes in the world -- or a significant enough portion of them, plus or minus hip-hop artists -- stop buying diamonds, De Beers will displease stockholders and go out of business. If all these Joe and Janes make clear that their decisions are based on concern about blood diamonds, then De Beers may be careful that its stock doesn't include blood diamonds (which it already says is the case, BTW), or at least to make the public -- plus any government investigators, journalists, etc. -- believe that it doesn't.

Del, I think what you may be trying to say is NOT that the consumer habits of Joe and Jane Citizen aren't at all important compared to the companies they buy from, but that not enough of them are getting involved in this issue to make a difference to De Beers. That may or may not be true, but I can assure you that De Beers is very aware of this controversy and has a PR position on it, because it doesn't want to lose even a few customers, let alone a lot.

Hey, why didn't I think to check Wikipedia before? This is in the "De Beers" entry, and it gives much more detail about De Beers' position on this issue. "Conflict diamonds," of course, are another term for "blood diamonds."

Conflict Diamonds and the Kimberley Process
Main articles: Blood diamond and Kimberley Process Certification Scheme

De Beers policy in the 1990s, which applied to all of Africa, was only to buy those diamonds that were legitimately traded and that it believed were not used to fund rebel groups, although as a leader in the industry they came under scrutiny and were widely believed to be a prominent dealer of conflict diamonds. In 1999, in line with a zero-tolerance policy, De Beers stopped all outside buying of diamonds in order to guarantee categorically the conflict-free status of De Beers diamonds.[39][40]

In December 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a landmark UN resolution[41] supporting the creation of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. By November 2002, negotiations between governments, the international diamond industry and civil society organisations resulted in the creation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), which sets out the requirements for controlling rough diamond production and trade and became effective in 2003.

De Beers states that 100% of the diamonds it now sells are conflict-free and that all De Beers diamonds are purchased in compliance with national law, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme[42] and its own Diamond Best Practice Principles.[29] The Kimberley process has helped restore the reputation of the industry, as well as eliminating sources of excess supply.[18]

[delalluvia]

Well, see, that's where "stats and more stats" come in. That way you don't have to rely entirely on what you happen to see around your neighborhood. It's a big country, Del. Lots of different kinds of neighborhoods.

Yes there are and I'm fairly sure that there are a great many more low income people than upper income people, so I'm thinking that unless carmakers make hybrids that even low income people can afford, basically the advantages in driving hybrids won't really make an impact.

Hmm. Let's review. You said

So I said

Sorry I meant it in the way that Mexico is a neighboring country from whom we get plenty of imports, not that it's convenient to the every day person where I live.

Fine. No argument here. But again, the two are not mutually exclusive. What you're saying is like, volunteering to teach in a low-income school would be more meaningful than writing a check at a school fundraiser. So therefore, don't write a check at the fundraiser.

Not the same thing.  A company is not a school.

Fine. If, to you, having everyone in the United States suddenly stop all use of oil seems not only "timely and effective" but practical and possible, go for it. I'm not trying to prevent you, god knows.

And what would happen to OPEC if the U.S. suddenly switched to an alternate power source?

You're participating in it. And to scornfully say that I "went on about diamonds" on a thread tiled "On Diamonds" seems a little out of line.

I was saying that people refusing to buy conflict diamonds is to stop money being channeled to groups who support human rights abuses and when I point out that it's a minimal effect and why not focus on a cause that really hits these groups in the pocketbook because of the huge investment in sales of oil, I found that my suggestion was shrugged off with 'oh but we need it' and then the focus put back on diamonds.  To me, diamonds aren't the point of the thread, stopping funds to human rights abusers are.

Whoever claimed it was "much of a sacrifice"? We're talking about it as something people may consider doing if they support the issue. Not about whether to elevate those who do it to sainthood.

No, to me, it's a throwaway effort.  IMO, it's something people can do to make themselves feel good about helping a cause, when in fact, it's so minor an effort it's hardly worth it.

Please show me where I or anyone claimed it is some giant sacrifice.

Then what's the point?

Yes, people may forget plot points but I do think most viewers will retain its main point: that some -- not all -- diamonds are obtained in a way that adds to human misery.

Know anyone getting married recently?  Have they not bought diamonds?  Did they check to make sure they were not conflict diamonds?  Most people I know didn't even go see Blood Diamond so they likely have no idea there is even a problem.

We've now gone over and over how production and sales businesses work, and if you're still not getting it I guess I'm running out of things to say. Consumers like Joe and Jane have an impact because De Beers depends on their business. One couple's actions have, realistically, no impact. But if all the Joes and Janes in the world -- or a significant enough portion of them, plus or minus hip-hop artists -- stop buying diamonds, De Beers will displease stockholders and go out of business. If all these Joe and Janes make clear that their decisions are based on concern about blood diamonds, then De Beers may be careful that its stock doesn't include blood diamonds (which it already says is the case, BTW), or at least to make the public -- plus any government investigators, journalists, etc. -- believe that it doesn't.

Del, I think what you may be trying to say is NOT that the consumer habits of Joe and Jane Citizen aren't at all important compared to the companies they buy from, but that not enough of them are getting involved in this issue to make a difference to De Beers. That may or may not be true, but I can assure you that De Beers is very aware of this controversy and has a PR position on it, because it doesn't want to lose even a few customers, let alone a lot.

Hey, why didn't I think to check Wikipedia before? This is in the "De Beers" entry, and it gives much more detail about De Beers' position on this issue. "Conflict diamonds," of course, are another term for "blood diamonds."

The Wikipedia article made my point for me.  De Beers wasn't waiting for scores of John and Janes to stop buying diamonds to make their decision.  The head office made the decision and it was a huge impact and almost literally overnight.  That's what I'm looking for.  Wouldn't it be easier to convince one person - or a dozen people - (the COO or the operating officers of a company like De Beers) than to wait for a grassroots effort that may take years to have an effect?  That's all I'm saying.

[serious crayons]

Yes there are and I'm fairly sure that there are a great many more low income people than upper income people,

Again, not something you have to rely on being "fairly sure" about -- stats are easily available online.

Sorry I meant it in the way that Mexico is a neighboring country from whom we get plenty of imports, not that it's convenient to the every day person where I live.

Wait, did you think I was suggesting you should drive to Mexico for food? No. I meant the produce imported from Mexico won't travel as far as it would from, say, Chile.

And what would happen to OPEC if the U.S. suddenly switched to an alternate power source?

I don't know. I guess if "suddenly switch(ing)" were a realistic option, we would find out. It's not.

I was saying that people refusing to buy conflict diamonds is to stop money being channeled to groups who support human rights abuses and when I point out that it's a minimal effect and why not focus on a cause that really hits these groups in the pocketbook because of the huge investment in sales of oil,

Hunh? I really can't make sense of this scenario. Do you envision general "groups who support human rights abuses" and who take in money from a multitude of sources, a sort of Human Rights Abusers Inc.? No, there are groups who mine diamonds; some of them commit human-rights abuses, and if people stop buying diamonds these groups will be affected. There are other, different groups who profit from oil. That's why it's possible to consider BOTH your diamond-buying habits and your oil-consumption habits -- it's not an either/or.

I found that my suggestion was shrugged off with 'oh but we need it'

See above. Again, I didn't say that, or anything even remotely like it. If your only way to make points in this discussion is to misquote me, repeatedly, even after you've been corrected, then this conversation is even more ridiculous than it seems, and I'm done. Come to think of it, I'm probably done anyway.

and then the focus put back on diamonds.  To me, diamonds aren't the point of the thread, stopping funds to human rights abusers are.

Then maybe you should start a thread on that subject. This one is about diamonds.

No, to me, it's a throwaway effort.  IMO, it's something people can do to make themselves feel good about helping a cause, when in fact, it's so minor an effort it's hardly worth it.

You're looking at it backwards. Not buying a diamond is not something "people can do to make themselves feel good about helping a cause." It works like this, for example: You are getting married. You consider buying a diamond. You decide against it because you don't want the symbol of your union to be an object whose production might have entailed human-rights offenses. Done. Simple as that.

It's NOT "Dammit, that's it, I'm going to make those human-rights abusers pay! From now on I quit buying diamonds!"

Then what's the point?

Um ... because not all constructive efforts have to be giant sacrifices in order to not be pointless?

Know anyone getting married recently?  Have they not bought diamonds?  Did they check to make sure they were not conflict diamonds?  Most people I know didn't even go see Blood Diamond so they likely have no idea there is even a problem.

OK, well, good for them! This isn't about them. Blood Diamond and other efforts to publicize the situation are out there -- people who aren't aware of them won't be affected, just like with any other political action.

The Wikipedia article made my point for me.  De Beers wasn't waiting for scores of John and Janes to stop buying diamonds to make their decision.  The head office made the decision and it was a huge impact and almost literally overnight.  That's what I'm looking for.  Wouldn't it be easier to convince one person - or a dozen people - (the COO or the operating officers of a company like De Beers) than to wait for a grassroots effort that may take years to have an effect?  That's all I'm saying.

Hmm. When was the last time you, as one person, attempted to convince the head(s) of a huge corporation to change corporate practices? Not very effective, generally. You usually "convince one person -- or a dozen people" by showing them that their customers care what they do. That's what boycotts are about.

And with that, I think I'm done with this discussion.

[delalluvia]

Um ... because not all constructive efforts have to be giant sacrifices in order to not be pointless?

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this.  Otherwise you're supporting the idea that eating a drinking a diet coke with one's double Big Mac with cheese and large fries actually accomplishes anything.

OK, well, good for them! This isn't about them. Blood Diamond and other efforts to publicize the situation are out there -- people who aren't aware of them won't be affected, just like with any other political action.

Hmm. When was the last time you, as one person, attempted to convince the head(s) of a huge corporation to change corporate practices? Not very effective, generally. You usually "convince one person -- or a dozen people" by showing them that their customers care what they do. That's what boycotts are about.

And with that, I think I'm done with this discussion.

Tried to convince the heads of a major corporation?  According to you, all it takes is one movie to convince people.  No, I don't buy the 'heads of all big corporations' are heartless drones stereotype.  They're people too.