tbh the diamond industry has wrought such horrors relative to the length of time the tradition's been in place that even lab stones or other clear rocks seem bad as an engagement ring.

@maya Especially since the tradition owes its existence to the diamond industry.

@ghost_bird yeah there are a lot of traditions that derive their meaning from, like, centuries of practice that are potentially valuable separately from contingent/problematic origins... but w/diamond rings we're talking what, 5, 6 generations max?

@maya 130 years since the De Beers cartel and about 75 since the big marketing push on diamond engagement rings... though the tradition was there already.

@ghost_bird btw I was just Googling this and do you have a source on the tradition pre-De Beers? that's not me challenging you, it's just because I can't find anybody citing stuff that isn't industry affiliated for, like, specifically diamond engagement rings as a Thing

@maya No, no source - just a note in that article on the “diamonds are forever” campaign that it existed before the marketing push.

@maya Let me know what you find if you do. I’d be interested.


@ghost_bird @maya I seem to recall reading way back there DeBeers was able to build the whole engagement ring is diamonds thing on prior traditions that weren’t necessarily diamonds. That was the sell job. Probably strengthened it while they were making it diamond specific so that you weren’t getting engaged without that ring.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!