My boss hates Bill Clinton because he took money for the Rhodes scholarship, among many other reasons. Her intense hatred has something to do with the Rhodes family as head of Rhodesia. According to her the Rhodes’s basically abused the population and caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people (not unlike most colonial provinces). What’s the story of the Rhodes family, the Rhodes scholarship, and their evil-doings in Rhodesia.
Rhodes murdered lots of people who had the misfortune of squatting on diamond fields. He stole their land and called it Rhodesia. He also started the de Beers diamond company, now one of the most evil cartels in the world. You wonder why young men buy diamonds for their fiances? It’s our culture right? Wrong, it is pure advertising hype created by de Beers. Rhodes started the Boer war to wipe out the Boers, farmers who had the misfortune of squatting on land that was rich in gold. The corollary to all of this is that all diamonds are conflict diamonds.
Good PBS doc about de Beers:
I’m reminded of a Cornell student who led a big sit-in in 1993/94. He kept claiming (falsely) that the president of Cornell, who happened to be named “Rhodes” was a close relative of Cecil Rhodes and was, therefore, automatically an evil racist for not being too keen on funding a Latino Cultural Center. Fast forward not too far and that selfsame student sees nothing at all wrong with accepting a Rhodes Scholarship.
I had no idea of the connection of the scholarship and de Beers before this thread, interesting.
But to hate Clinton for taking the scholarship seems silly. Does taking the scholarship equate to support of Rhodes’ activities?
Surely then I_Know_Nothing’s boss must hate the Bushes for Prescott Bush, who at least indirectly helped fund the Nazi party?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html
Note that I don’t think that either President Bush should be hated for what their father/grandfather did; but if you’re gonna hate Clinton for the scholarship connection…
My wife’s great grandfather was in the KKK. I guess that means my kids are tainted, too.
Maybe so, but let’s not forget that the Boers wiped out the native Africans who were there before them, who had the misfortune of living on land that was fertile. What goes around, comes around and all that.
Funnily enough, this advertising hype was anticipated by Eurpoean royalty for centuries. Check your O.E.D. The idea of a diamond engagement ring goes back quite a bit.
The de Beers corp has a lot to answer for, but they are not responsible for the idea that diamonds are precious or an excellent stone for an engagement ring.
In the USA, it was Tiffany, not deBeers that had the big diamond ring marketing campaign.
I suppose I should make the obligatory mention that at Rhodes’ direction, Lord Alfred Milner started the Round Table groups, aka the Royal Institute for International Affairs, which became entangled with Fabian Socialists & created the American branch through their ally “Colonel” Edward Mandell House- the Council on Foreign Relations.
That may be true, but I think it can be successfully argued that deBeers artificially inflates the value of these stones by controlling the vast majority of world production and distribution. Diamonds are not rare stones (comparatively), and are generally a poor investment; the public is duped into believing that diamonds will increase in value, and has successfully marketed the emotional attachment.
The only diamonds in my home are attached to tools. I prefer seriously blood-tainted stones: Emeralds and Rubies.