DeBeers: Exploitation is Forever at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture

DeBeers: Exploitation is Forever

by Guest Contributor Tami, originally published at What Tami Said

Diamond purveyor DeBeers wants you to get your Africa-inspired bling on. The September issue of Elle magazine (originally spotted on Jezebel) features the company’s diamond pendants shaped like tribal masks. Hmm, let’s see…what part of this is most vomitously offensive?

The fact that Cecil Rhodes, DeBeers’ founder was a colonialist and white supremacist, who disdained non-Anglo culture and eagerly participated in the rape of the African continent throughout his lifetime? Wikipedia says:

Rhodes wanted to expand the British Empire because he believed that the Anglo-Saxon race was destined to greatness. In his last will and testament, Rhodes said of the British, “I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.” He wanted to make the British Empire a superpower in which all of the white countries in the empire, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, would be represented in the British Parliament. Rhodes included Americans in the Rhodes scholarships and said that he wanted to breed an American elite of philosopher-kings who would have the USA rejoin the British Empire. Rhodes also respected the Germans and admired the Kaiser, and allowed Germans to be included in the Rhodes scholarships. He believed that eventually Great Britain, the USA and Germany together would dominate the world and ensure peace together. Read more…

Is it the hideous pan-Africanness of the trinkets? They are not true representations of any African culture or specific tribe. I would bet that the pendants’ designer knows nothing of the animal spirit masks of Burkina Faso, or the religious, ceremonial masks of the Yoruba or Igbo. DeBeers is offering diamond-encrusted, co-opted culture–exoticized and commodified. The company is selling generic baubles to be worn (let’s be honest) by people with no African heritage and no interest in the plight of the continent.

No…no…I think the worst part of this is the hypocrisy of DeBeers, a company that has played a major role in the bloody history of diamond mining and its devasting affect on African nations and peoples, trafficking in Africanized diamond trinkets. Says Dodai at Jezebel:

But De Beers (which controls about 40% of the world diamond market) built its company on the backs of “poorly-paid, abominably treated native African workers,” and is often accused of human rights violations and illegal mining operations.

Watch this segment of a nine-part video developed by the International Rescue Committee on a trip to West Africa:

(Hat Tip to Jezebel)

Trackbacks & Pings

Offsprung > Unsprung » The most tasteless thing I’ve seen in eternity on 07 Aug 2008 at 12:19 pm

[…] (Hat tip and explanation, if you’re unsure why this is the tackiest thing ever.) […]
kDiZi kDiZo on 07 Aug 2008 at 2:42 pm

[…] WOW! Debeers… […]

Comments

Phrone wrote:

The only thing I DIDN’T find offensive about the ads was the words “lets” and “with a collection of”

Other than that…yeah, no.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 7:15 am ¶
Stank-0 wrote:

What a coincidence! I was trolling around Wikipedia yesterday and was reading about the Berlin Conference and the Scramble for Africa, and whose name did I see but Cecil Rhodes.

Rhodes scholar, my @ss! If Rhodes can be admired then why not Mandela?

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 7:44 am ¶
Jus Plain Ol Me wrote:

Thanks for the knowledge. I didn’t know the distinguished Rhodes scholarships had this connection.

Regarding the beauty of the “amulets,” I could take them or leave them. I’m not especially impressed.

Regarding the “exoticizing” and “commodifying” of the product, I don’t see the inherent problem with selling the masks. However, I do see the irony or hypocrisy of the items being sold by DeBeer’s. Are these charms generic non-descript masks that have no true meaning? Perhaps. I’m not informed enough to know.

Let me present a different factual scenario. What about the three-bar red, black and green flag. As a kid growing up in the 80s, hip-hop artists and Africentric individuals in my community always loved that flag. As I understood it, the flag didn’t represent any particular African country. Instead, the colors were representative of an idea, concept or culture. Someone could similarly critique that flag as being a commodified object created by persons who do not know that the colors have an underlying meaning: red = blood; black = the people; green = land (or so I was always told). The gripe doesn’t so much seem to be with the commodification, but with who is profiting from the commodification. If the flag was sold made and sold by a black-owned business, I doubt a post similar to the one above would be written. However, how would we feel if the red-black-and-green flag was made by someone whose great-great-great grandfather was a white supremacist who used to make slave labor sew Confederate flags. Would it matter?

I realize that a distinction may exist regarding the current ongoing diamond trade atrocities, but I’m just playing a little devil’s advocate. That is to say, (setting aside the diamond trade problems) should we be offended by the charms in and of themselves, or are we just offended because they are being sold by DeBeer’s? Maybe the answer, for some, is both.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 7:53 am ¶
kim h20s wrote:

I had never realized the connection between Rhodes and the scholarship either. However, take heart. My african-american uncle was a rhodes scholar in the 60s and has used that degree to become extremely successful and rich businessman here and abroad doing development work in africa. plus he also married a white woman. take that mr. rhodes!

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 8:20 am ¶
kakodaimon wrote:

Jus Plain Ol Me:

The difference between the Pan-African flag and the charms can maybe be compared to the EU flag versus a crucifix with Muhammad on it wearing a little Torah as a fashionable chapeau. One is a political symbol designed by the people to whom it matters; the other is this totally ignorant mish-mashing and appropriation (without reference or consent) of people’s sacred imagery.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 9:20 am ¶
Jus Plain Ol Me wrote:

Kakadaimon:

I can see the distinction. Based on your comment, I presume that the bigger gripe is with the charm itself more than the salesperson. I’m just trying to figure out if some (even if not as much) disdain would exist if this were sold by a black jewelry store owner or if wooden facsimiles were sold at a community Black history festival. The same mish-mash would still be present.

As to whether or not these “tribal-inspired” masks have any valid connection to actual African tribes, I’ll have to defer to the knowledge of others because I just don’t know. (But if I had to bet, I’d guess that the amount of research or consultation conducted by DeBeer’s was minimal.)

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 9:38 am ¶
Jus Plain Ol Me wrote:

kakodaimon:

And sorry for spelling the ID wrong.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 9:39 am ¶
Gothic Guera wrote:

I very active in buying against blood Diamonds, and I’m so glad I learned this today. This why I buy fair trade jewelry or home made. it’s depressing because a lot of people don’t know how some diamond are mined and they only see the shiny outcome. To be honest I don’t mean to be catty, when I first saw the picture I thought they were Beatles, not tribal masks.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 9:41 am ¶
Renee wrote:

Why are people surprised? The diamond industry is based upon the exploitation of blacks, this is just an honest representation of it. Do people really believe that it is any different when they run around town with a blood diamond engagement ring on their finger just because it is not set in a mask?

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 10:54 am ¶
Lydia wrote:

woah. woah. Cecil Rhodes founded DeBeers and they’re still active and popular? Cecil Rhodes, the ‘founder’ of Southern Rhodesia and the racist fucker-upper of Zimbabwe? Wow. I always knew that I didn’t want a diamond, but now I am entirely, completely, 100% sure.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 11:07 am ¶
Jack D. wrote:

All those things noted here, PLUS the fact that the ridiculous value of diamonds is nothing more than an illusion perpetuated by a vast marketing ploy and corporate monopoly. The social pressure to incur years of debt just to buy a piece of diamond jewelry as the truest symbol of love p****s me off.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 11:15 am ¶
Alexandra wrote:

@Jus Plain Old Me
I agree that charms are mostly the problem. Maybe its just me but no matter who’s selling it it just reeks of colonialism and I would be just as annoyed if saw these in Essence magazine.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 11:26 am ¶
maia wrote:

i was in the eastern congo a couple of years ago researching the effect of the war on congolese women. ‘blood diamonds’ is actually a relatively benign name for what the mining for diamonds and other minerals (coltan for example) have done to the region. the cooptation of african symbology and spirituality for debeers profits makes my stomach turn. millions of women have been raped and killed in order that these diamonds can be sold. you cant buy a diamond that does not have blood on its bling. these pendants look like the skulls of the murdered.
as for the afrocentric flag–growing up in a pro-black family, i was told pretty earlyon what that flag represented. i dont believe (although i dont know the exact historical origins of the flag) that the flag was created without ppl knowing what the colors represented. it was created and treated as a way to represent pan-africanism especially among the african diaspora.
diamonds arent necessary (unlike food and clothes). they serve no practical purpose. they are entirely a show of wealth and to me diamonds are a direct symbol of the evils of colonization. i remember being at a family wedding where all of the young ladies were showing off how big their engagement diamonds were and i wanted to gag. all i could see were my congolese friends faces reflected silently in their shiny little carats. no offense to those of you who love your diamonds.
what keeps running through my head as i write this is the kanye west song about blood diamonds. where he talks about the contradiction of blacks using diamonds as a way to show that they are just as worthy of sporting the the symbols of colonization as the whites who colonized blacks in the first place.

plus these ‘tribal’ pendants and rings are just ostentatiously ugly.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 11:27 am ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

DeBeer CAN GO FUCKIN ROT IN HELL!!!!

also, I hate the DeBeer model with passion. She’s white, blonde, and blue-eyed and often appears in fashion magazines for advertising DeBeer.

I always stab the model’s face with my pocketknife and scrawl “white Devil” across her forehead because it represents the ugly truth of DeBeer: rich white people exploiting dark skinned/Africans, and the model forcibly reminded me of my childhood memories where I used to hate white kids because I thought all white kids weren’t to be trusted

(don’t worry, I’ve grown up and matured. I no longer feel that way toward white people)

If anybody else is offended by what I wrote, I’m sorry.

Mod Note - I think I’ll let this comment stand due to your clarification and pre-emptive apology, but holy hell woman, my eyebrows hit the top of my forehead when I read your comment. I am glad you realize these kinds of feelings are (1) not productive and (2) the result of misplaced anger toward a white supremacist society, not white individuals as a whole. -LDP

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 11:31 am ¶
jvansteppes wrote:

DeBeers sponsored a building at a university I once went to and when they had their opening ceremony we threw onion rings at them and had signs that said ‘onion rings not diamond rings’.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 12:06 pm ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

@jvansteppes:

did they still keep the DeBeer building on campus? Man if they did that to my university you bet your ass we would have had a HUUUUUGE protest!!! (I graduated from Univ of MO-Columbia)

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 12:27 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:

Just disgusting. Layers of disgusting.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 1:15 pm ¶
DAS wrote:

Kakodaimon … I perfectly agree with you, and hence I do not wish to detract from your larger point, but I have to say –

a crucifix with Muhammad on it wearing a little Torah as a fashionable chapeau.

is just plain frickin’ brilliant! It’s amazing how often you see hodgepodges of “exotic cultural artifacts” that are pretty much on this level of authenticity and coherency.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 1:19 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:

DeBeers was founded by slave traders? Wow.
Next thing you know somebody will be telling me that George Washington and T. Jefferson were slaveowners.

Is this really news to people?

It’s just one more part of the truth most folks don’t like to talk about about.

Does anybody know a single person whoever took their diamond jewelry or gold jewelry to a dealer and say, “seriously, did anybody die or get pimped so i could buy this?”

i don’t.

DeBeers understands bankruptcy; but nobody’s returning their rocks and gold demanding better treatment for the people who mine it.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 4:34 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:

It should be required of the scholarship that every Rhodes Scholar publish their findings on the origins of their scholarship with their opinions on it. A year of civil service in Zambia (formerly Rhodeisa) should also be required.

Part of changing and “never forgetting” is having folks like Bill Clinton and every other recipient publicly say, “the ends do not justify the means” and how you acquire wealth has limitations, especially when it comes to issues of colonialism, slavery and capitalism.

I only mention Bill, because he might be the most famous Rhodes Scholar in recent memory and for all his years of “i love black people” BS, he never set foot in Zambia or mentioned the inhumanity that takes place in the name of prestigious scholarship and capitalism.

I guess we could also get some insights from Bill Bradley, Naomi Wolf (yeah, that Naomi Wolf), Kris Kristofferson, William Fulbright, George Stephanopoulos as they’re the most famous Rhodes Scholars I can name.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 4:57 pm ¶
Anthony Taurus wrote:

And how many Black people will jump at the chance to “represent” for Africa by buying these items. The people at DeBeers know what their doing. At a time when people are tightening their belts, white folks can always count on Black people to spend, spend, spend.

We continue to have this “blame them” attitude. The truth is, they wouldn’t do it if they couldn’t count on us to be there for them when they really want it.

This is the same thing as Timberland. They didn’t want Black folk buying their boots. But, they realized that Black folk are still stupid and will still spend that money. Now, they’ve got designer boots at twice the price and their sales have skyrocketed.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 5:10 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:

Tack-o-rama! Blood diamonds, colonialist Rhode’s company selling them, religious symbol mangled, tacky ad text, and just plain ugly jewelry design. That’s five things wrong with it, have I missed others?

Is it better or worse to make a generic design rather than a specific religious tradition’s design? Does it matter if the religious tradition is dead (replaced by Christianity or Islam), and how recently dead it is? Is Akhenaton worshipping the Sun-as-God-image an appropriate design? A ritual mask design that hasn’t been used in ritual for 30 years? A mask design that is made for a secular celebration or life event, and never was specifically religious / devotional?

All that aside, for the woman that can carry it off, those giant torqued hoop gold earrings traditional for Fulani women are gorgeous, and of simple design that goes with everything (except faces too small for the hoops).

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 5:39 pm ¶
Marge Twain wrote:

All mined diamonds go through the DeBeers company and it is impossible to know, when you think you’re buying an ethically sourced Canadian diamond, if that’s really it’s provenance.

Diamond rings are a culturally powerful symbol, even if not an old tradition(yes, I know what the history is there) I have a beautiful lab-created yellow diamond ring. It’s a very new technology that creates a real diamond, not a look-alike, impossible to tell apart by an appraiser. They are cheaper to buy, but mine is insured at the inflated value of a mined diamond. For those less revolutionary this is a good alternative.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 5:50 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:

@ Marge,

that’s a good option.

Still, there’s something less romantic and slightly mechanical about knowing your diamond came from a lab as opposed to the ground. It’s like the MP3 DJ vs. the DJ with crates of wax. I’m not judging, but i think that’s how most will look at the option you chose.

However, in lieu of wholesale boycotts and accountability, this might be a worthwhile stance. DeBeers doesn’t have to change–the marketplace simply isn’t demanding it. For all the anti-blood diamond talk, it’ll probably go down as another trend that bit the dust.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 7:10 pm ¶
EmilyN wrote:

There is a certification scheme for diamond mining that is designed to prevent the sale of blood diamonds (diamonds used to buy guns & ammo thus supporting the spread of violence) called the Kimberley Process. You may now run to Wikipedia…

Although all the major diamond players will say that they are blood diamond free because they are adherents to this scheme, the documents are easily forged, the system is a band-aid on a broken arm. Diamonds are property of the state in most countries, thus in essence fueling repression and inequality regardless of the KPCS e.g. Angola.

Besides the point, if one really wanted to help development in Africa, these companies wouldn’t be shipping all the raw diamonds to Antwerp to be cut and polished and would instead locate finishing centers in the countries that produce the diamonds and need that value added revenue. However, this would break one of the most completely successful cartels in modern history (even more controlling than OPEC) and unravel the power of DeBeers. The whole industry is a bloody debacle.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 8:38 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:

Oh. My. Damn. A SHARE: I remember seeing hundreds of surviving amputee refugees - mostly women and kids - fleeing from the diamond-financed terror of Sierra Leone in Dakar 10 years. Everyone knew where the money came from. I resolved then to never buy OR accept a diamond. Those attached to their bling should read WaPo correspondent Doug Farrah’s articles linking illegal diamond trafficking wealth to the 9/11 attacks. PoC in particular have no excuse for supporting this shameful trade.

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 10:33 pm ¶
David21009 wrote:

I don’t see the need for gaudy jewelry in the first place. The idea of spending so much for something to tiny is ridiculous in itself, but when you consider the human cost - how can you live with yourself? I wear a very inexpensive wedding band and nothing else. My wife has some jewelry handed down to her and a few things I bought for her w/my meager income over the past 13 years before I wised up and learned the truth about diamonds. Now I’m ashamed I ever scraped together the money to buy the stuff for her knowing that someone paid in blood for them. Newlyweds starting out in the world spending thousands on fancy engagement rings and wedding rings, wake up! How about college money for your kids or a down payment on a house? If you’re already rich why not do something worthwhile with that money, “bling” is so wasteful.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 6:25 am ¶
Pheagan wrote:

I always found it weird that everyone in Hollywood was so gung-ho about animal rights but had no problems with wearing diamonds. There’s no diamond-shaming organization for African people’s rights. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, seeing as Hollywood is the land of the white man in Africa movie.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 9:17 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

All mined diamonds go through the DeBeers company and it is impossible to know, when you think you’re buying an ethically sourced Canadian diamond, if that’s really it’s provenance.

Thanks for bringing that up marge. In addition the Kimberly process (certification of such “ethicalness”) is a self-regulated process.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 9:38 am ¶
Marge Twain wrote:

@Black Canseco: I know what you mean about the apparant romance of a mined diamond.

My husband proposed to me with a true red un heat-treated spinel ring which I was very happy with. Neither of us wanted a blood diamond and he wanted to give me something truly rare and special. The problem was, people didn’t believe I was engaged! Guys still hit on me. One of my co-workers told me she thought I was joking because I didn’t have a diamond ring. Another woman referred to it as a garnet. I defensively developed a little speech of explanation “Actually it’s more rare and valuable than diamonds or rubies…” I complimented a client of mine on her alexandrite ring and she told me she was engaged, then immediately launched into her explanation of “why not a diamond ring” I told her I understood completely.

Progressive guy that my then-fiancee is, he thought it was wrong that only women wore the symbol of being possessed and he was already looking around for a stone for an engagement ring for himself. Since we learned about the lab diamonds and because he could never find a stone he liked as much as mine, It worked out well for him to get the spinel in a ring and for me to get the diamond ring I had always wanted but thought I shouldn’t have.

I actually was skeptical of the “realness” of the diamond until I saw it. Personally, I don’t see romance in war and enslavement of Africans, yet I still admire the beauty of diamonds and they remain a powerful symbol of love and marriage. I know a lot of women feel the same way. It’s going to take education for more people to go the route I did. Sometimes women admire my ring and I tell them it’s a lab-created and they look crestfallen “It’s moissanite?” “no, it’s a diamond” But I want to get the word out that there’s a third way that’s no less “real”. That’s the way change is going to happen.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 1:11 pm ¶
Cynthia wrote:

Diamonds are about image. When I told my mom that I’d like sapphire (my birth stone) in my ring, my mom FREAKED. Blue, she said, was not considered a happy colour in Chinese culture. She said that if non-Canadian raised Chinese person saw me with a sapphire ring, they’d probably think that my husband didn’t love me.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 1:28 pm ¶
Cynthia wrote:

^^^
hypothetical husband, that is. I’m not married yet.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 1:43 pm ¶
Thea wrote:

One of the most disturbing things about this is how it shows DeBeers following the arc of racism to a tee, from way back when attempts to exterminate people of colour were through violence, all the way to exterminating people of colour through appropriation.

Racism has effectively turned itself inside out; once it attempted to eliminate non-white races by excluding them, now it attempts to eliminate non-white races by including them. Ie at the time of Rhodes it was socially acceptable (ie encouraged) to talk about how non-white races needed to be rubbed off the globe, and so attempts to rub them off the globe were very literal.

Now it’s no longer socially acceptable to talk that way (in general and excluding CNN pundits exhortations to rub Iran off the globe) and so racism has to rub non-white races off the globe by co-opting them, consuming them, and throwing them up as commercial goods for white/rich folks.

It’s for this reason that I see the preponderence of sushi restaurants, yoga studios, african drum shops etc…NOT as hallmarks of a healthy multicultural society, but as signs of a brand new and even more insidious frontier of racism. Terrifying.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 4:19 pm ¶
Mogs wrote:

“Is it the hideous pan-Africanness of the trinkets? They are not true representations of any African culture or specific tribe. I would bet that the pendants’ designer knows nothing of the animal spirit masks of Burkina Faso, or the religious, ceremonial masks of the Yoruba or Igbo.”

ok, on this i call BS. they said tribal-inspired, so clearly they’re not trying to say, look, these are authentic African tribal designs here. if people never took inspiration from cultures not their own, everything would be so boring. their might be other problems with the ad, but this one fact of merely taking inspiration from various African cultures is not in and of itself a terrible thing.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 5:21 pm ¶
Pheagan wrote:

Mogs– in principal I would agree with you, but in context I don’t. I love when you see different cultures influencing each other, and I think the give and take of Japanese and American comic culture is an example where that is good and shows a real interest on both sides of finding out more about each other. But more often than not, when Americans are “culturally inspired”, they don’t really ever find out or expose any of the individual or particularities of the culture, instead drawing inspiration from the stereotype in their head, which does absolutely nothing to promote understanding of a culture. And this is really epic in the case of how Americans represent Africa. It’s always AFRICA, the continent, and despite the enormous variety and difference that exists from place to place is never, ever communicated to us (always the jungle, or the grassland– how many times have you seen Bugs Bunny run from a jungle into the grasslands? That’s not even geographically possible). It’s always the same masks and bone earring crap. And a lot of the stereotype is a lie– people always think tigers, for instance, but tigers don’t exist in Africa. Or, here’s one: people think that tribe who wears the necklaces that elongate your neck are an African tribe, when in fact they are a tribe from Southeast Asia called the Karen. So, rather than communicating anything of value, this pan-African thing actually carries a lot of disinformation within it that is the foundation for a lot of cultural misunderstandings.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 10:06 pm ¶
queenofsheba wrote:

wOOt for the non-diamond engagement rings! i’ve got reused sapphires in a recovered-gold setting, and i lurves it.

i don’t believe lab-grown diamonds are any less romantic, either, for those who like the look. the whole engagement diamond thing is so artificial already. . .

Posted 12 Aug 2008 at 9:43 am ¶
same as it ever was wrote:

Hey, I’m just glad I’m not the only one who was surprised by this. I don’t read fashion mags, but I was looking for that controversial Beyonce spread and found this. That’s appropriation par excellence.

Posted 12 Aug 2008 at 12:51 pm ¶