Post # 1
Background: the center stone of my e-ring has been in my family for three generations and FI and I had it reset for my ring.
I was at a dinner party yesterday and a friend of a friend, who I had never met before, asked me where I got my ring. I told her the stone was heirloom and the store we went to for the setting. She proceeds to go off all holier-than-thou to me about how I am wearing a blood diamond and how reprehensible that is. Now, if I was buying a new ring, I would steer clear of conflict diamonds, but this diamond is a family heirloom and was purchased a very long time ago when all diamonds were conflict diamonds. I don’t think I should be made to feel bad about wearing it, and I don’t really think it is fair to label me a supporter of conflict diamonds for wearing a stone that has been in my family since the early 1900s.
So my question is, do people actually consider someone who wears an heirloom diamond a supporter of conflict diamonds? I have never heard this before.
Post # 3
I say no, and I feel the same way about furs. You are not personally putting money into the industry, you are simply taking something (that may mean a lot to you) that has already been bought. There’s nothing you can do about it at this point, but IMO there’s no reason to let it sit around and collect dust if the damage has already been done, so to speak.
Post # 4
That’s ridiculous. I would be as horrified at her attack as you.
Post # 5
@flapperphilosopher: What! No way, it’s an heirloom, for goodness sake! That’s just silly IMO. Sorry to hear that you had to put up with that!
Post # 6
I’ve never heard that before. My ring is an antique too (not an heirloom, one DH purchased) I sure don’t consider it a conflict diamond.
Post # 7
@flapperphilosopher: uh no, they don’t. At least not in my experience. I’m in the same boat as you-would not have bought a diamond new w/o checking but had a family stone from the 40s…dont let this socially inappropriate person make you feel bad!!
Post # 8
@flapperphilosopher: Hmmm… I’ve never considered an heirloom diamond to be conflict because you didn’t pay money into the industry, so you’re not supporting it. However, the comparison to furs is sort of making me rethink my position. I definitely wouldn’t wear a fur even if it had been in my familly for years because I think it’s crule. So by that token, I guess an heirloom ring is still crule. Interesting.
That said- she’s a bitch for saying that. I want a moissy for this exact reason (plus I really like that crazy flashes they give off) but I would NEVER go around telling people not to buy diamonds! I even went with my BFF’s now-husband to buy her ring and wouldn’t have even considered asking about the source. Ain’t my business. I’m only responsible for what’s on my hand.
Post # 9
- Wedding: September 2015 - Ketchum, ID
@flapperphilosopher: That’s like telling people who live in Germany that they support the Nazi Regime. She sounds like a stupid idiot.
Post # 10
@flapperphilosopher: wow. lovely guest! No, I don’t consider someone wearing any diamond a supporter of conflict diamonds… I would probably have starting talking to her about the inhumane treatment of those who make her cellphone in China or asked her if she is ok with slaughtering animals for her shoes…
Post # 11
I would wear heirloom anything except fur/skin. I would donate the fur to the animal shelters for bedding for them for warmth and comfort since it is fur. It would make me feel better knowing that this poor animal who most likely suffered for their skin would have a purpose besides fashion. I would not wear it ever but to each their own.
Post # 12
Wearing an heirloom stone is the same as wearing vintage fur. It in no way supports any industry surrounding the material now; it is considered to be “conflict free” because what’s done is done. You are not inflicting any new harm. Any harm that was done in the past is out of your hands, and you are not responsible or it. The person who tried to make you feel bad is misinformed.
Post # 13
Wow she sounds kind of dumb. She has no idea how your family obtained that diamond. Not all diamonds are from Africa or other places where miners are exploited.
Post # 14
Oh my God, I have an heirloom stone, and I would have been so irritated. No, I definitely don’t consider it a conflict diamond, wtf.
Post # 15
@flapperphilosopher: What an idiot. First off, it’s not her place to be preaching to anyone without invite. What a pretentious little brat.
But furthermore, no, it’s not the same as supporting blood diamonds. The fact is, the diamond was already purchased, by someone who wasn’t you. Even if it was a blood diamond at the time (which quite frankly, back then, virtually all diamonds were), you have not contributed any money to the continuance of conflict diamond mining.
Basically her logic is that all diamonds that were ever purchased in the past should be destroyed, which not help those forced to mine diamonds under awful conditions at all.
She basically just wants to have a big, one-size-fits-all opinion that makes her feel warm and fuzzy about herself without doing or thinking anything useful about the actual issue at hand. Aka, she’s an idiot, ignore her.
What you are doing, .ie., owning a vintage diamond, is actually helpful in the prevention of blood diamonding, because you are diminishing the demand for modern diamonds to be mined. So you are far more beneficial to her “cause” than she is.
Post # 16
@flapperphilosopher: It’s not like you inherited an enslaved diamond miner and continue to force him to mine for you, dude, that woman is nuts. Heirloom stones are infinitely better for the environment, mining any stone (including a bloodless one) is hugely damaging to the environment. Throw that back in crazy woman’s face next time she tries to start something from atop her nut-filled soapbox.