"Blood Diamond" on Oprah Dec. 6 -- Plus Some Thoughts

Elizabeth Snead's Los Angeles Times "Styles and Scenes" blog — which has, shall we say, a friendly relationship with the "Blood Diamond" publicity department — is now reporting that the movie will be featured on Oprah Dec. 6.

By the way, the rest of her post is a doozy. Snead writes, in a style more befitting Tiger Beat than the LA Times, that "faithful fans" hoping to "catch [Leonardo DiCaprio's] eyes" should not wear diamonds, because DiCaprio told Time magazine "that he would never let one of his girlfriends wear diamonds." (He has since given a more extensive, and far less negative, comment.) And then, she adds, pitching Amnesty International's red "Blood Diamond" bracelets:

It's worth mentioning that there are literally thousands of innocent men, women and children in South Africa who can't wear these bracelets.

Why? Their hands and arms were hacked off by rebels during the '90s decade-long civil war in Sierra Leone, a war financed and fueled in large part by the illicit sale of rough "conflict" or "blood" diamonds. 

It's pretty sad that someone who has written so much about this issue does not know basic facts. For one, South Africa is a country, and it does not include Sierra Leone. The proper term for the region is "Southern Africa." But even then she is wrong. Sierra Leone is in West Africa, as are the other conflict diamond countries.

Look, all journalists — including me– make mistakes (although one could argue that, on this topic, Snead and the Times have exceeded their quota.) But this mistake is important because it goes to the heart of this issue — that not all diamonds in Africa are the same.

In strife-torn West Africa, diamond sales have certainly led to some horrible things, which you can learn about at your multiplex this Christmas. In Southern Africa, however, diamonds have actually done pretty well, fueling the economies of three of Africa's most properous and democratic countries.

This industry's challenge in the days ahead – and it's an important one — is to replicate the good things it does in Southern Africa throughout the continent.
 
What doesn't help is when Snead and others like her imply that people shouldn't wear diamonds. The three biggest diamond producing countries in Africa — South Africa, Namibia and Botswana — all depend on diamond revenue. If the diamond industy is hurt, those countries are hurt too.

Take this article: De Beers laying off up to 1,000 people in South Africa. That's a terrible story. All those people losing their jobs, in a country which has 25% unemployment. But let's say, one out of 100 people in the United States don't buy diamonds as the result of articles like Snead's. That's a 1% dip in sales. Do you know how much money that is? And let's say the number goes higher. How many lost jobs could that ultimately lead to? And how destabilizing would that be for those countries?

Then it really will be impossible to tell Southern from West Africa. 

Finally, keeping with this topic, if you want straight "blood diamond" (lowercase) info without the movie promos, Partnership Africa Canada just put up its own, very interesting, information site. Check it out.