"No Dirty Gold" campaign

Thanks to Daniel Spirer for his thoughtful reply to my recent rant.

I replied to him as follows -

For the most part I don’t think we are in any disagreement. I think,
however, that either I did not make myself clear or that you read my
rant hurriedly and maybe missed a few points.

First, On the issue of “purity” I agree completely that people
forget that there are many many activities, all human activities for
that matter, in which we must consciously examine the consequences of
our actions. If we choose to do something differently because of what
we have seen, maybe that’s a good thing. If we choose to do nothing,
to continue as before, maybe that’s OK too. Maybe we cannot afford to
change. Maybe we can be more effective making other changes in our
lives. I think I only asked that people don’t instantly dismiss what
is brought to their attention simply because the speaker or writer
is also a “sinner”. That is just a poor argument, an excuse used too
frequently by people who feel economically threatened. An economic
threat is a real threat, really scary, and scared people don’t
always think clearly.

Second, on the issue of “Value” - You actually support what I said
but you seem to have missed my point. I was writing about the
INTRINSIC value of “precious” materials like gold, diamonds etc. This
is a far different kind of value than “MARKET” value or "SOCIAL"
value. I’m sure you can understand that a bar of gold is
intrinsically worthless compared to a dish of food (to a person who
is starving.) That is an extreme case, of course, but makes the
point. We DON’T NEED gold. We NEED food. I agree wholeheartedly with
you that we also need means of emotional expression in our lives as
you so clearly stated. However, the means of expression is at our
discretion. In the absence of gold or diamonds, we can give other
objects as tokens of our deepest feelings and beliefs. An ordinary
seashell or pebble or flower or almost anything at all will do if
both the giver and receiver agree upon what is invested in that
object, both agree on what is being expressed.

My personal choice might be to give my wife a poem or play her a
song or cook her a meal. The market value of any of these things is
negligible. A few cents for a piece of paper, a few dollars for some
food, a little of my time. But the emotional value is very high - and
I don’t think you would think less of me for choosing to express my
feelings that way rather than by giving her a gold ring. It is
entirely a personal choice. If your customers can find no other way
to mark an occasion or hold onto a memory than via a piece of
jewelry, then that is their choice. We all make a choice every time
we take another breath or another heartbeat.

We just celebrated the 35th anniversary of our very happy marriage.
We were given rings by our children to mark the occasion. The rings
were 2 paper rings, the ones that come around big fat cigars. Cigar
bands. This was to commemorate our marriage in those days when we
were too poor to afford anything better than that. And nobody had to
dig up 30 tons of some far-away river bed or jungle hillside to get
a little gold for those rings. Nobody had to risk life and limb.
Nobody had to pour cyanide into an aquifer. Nobody had to scrimp and
save and sacrifice hard-earned cash that could better be spent on
food or education or shelter. We felt very good about those paper
cigar bands because of what they meant emotionally, and because of
what they didn’t mean to the the world. What is valuable is the
marriage itself.

There is the only place where we disagree. Your assertion that I
"don’t think emotional attachments are necessary to a human’s life"
is very wrong. There is nothing in what I wrote that should cause you
to make that assumption, that accusation. I regret the fear of
economic disaster that my thoughts have aroused in your heart. I know
these are painful feelings and may cloud your perceptions of who I
am. I cannot compel you nor your valued customers to do anything at
all. You are free. I am no threat to you. You are free. Your
customers are free. It ain’t such a bad thing to be free.

Some of my children and grandchildren live in Boston. Perhaps I can
drop in and say hello to you next time I’m there and you’ll see I’m
not very scary.

Incidentally, I am Marty Hykin, not Olwyn Morinski - although my
email will show “Olwyn” as the sender. She is my estimable wife and
this is her computer I am using, thus the mixup in names.

Thanks for your thoughts, from one emotional human animal to
another,

Marty Hykin, in Victoria, BC

Dear Richard,

The “worth” in your rings has nothing to do with the materials from
which they are made. As Ian pointed out, they could be made of
stainless steel and be just as “worthy.” IMHO, it depends on the
values of the recipients.

Gold has what one could call archetypal value, because it has been
so highly valued for millennia. The archetypal value of diamonds has
nothing to do with the substance–it don’t mean a thing if it ain’t
got that bling. But the values of modernism, post-modernism,
feminism. etc. could easily override those archetypal values. For
example, I know lots of lesbian couples (I am, after all, living on
Albion Ridge, a world-famous enclave) who wouldn’t be caught dead
wearing, or giving, or exchanging diamonds or gold. And that doesn’t
mean they don’t exchange rings.

Lisa Orlando
Albion, CA, US

Lisa,

I know lots of lesbian couples who wouldn't be caught dead wearing,
or giving, or exchanging diamonds or gold. And that doesn't mean
they don't exchange rings. 

I feel like you missed the point of my post, it was not about gold
rings.

And from your above post, it seems to me that since rings are a
symbol of marriage, and lesbians can’t legally marry in the U.S., it
seems logical they reject diamonds, a symbol of engagement, but it
seems it would also be the ring that they would reject, (not what
material the ring is made of) as that is something our society
identifies with marriage.

And obviously, the lesbians I made rings for, would be caught dead
wearing gold rings., If you remember my post, they were legally
married in Canada, so the rings might be considered a valid symbol,
perhaps by the lesbians in your neck of the woods.

Wrong thinking does not make right action, and non-sequiters (reason
to not use gold or diamonds, reason to use rings) just seems like
confused thinking to me.

Validity or non validity of materials and their uses is based on
what criteria? Just make up whatever story you want to believe? Is
there some other material to make rings out of that make that
material more politically, emotionally, environmentally ect. correct?

It is not the downward spiral that concerns me, it is the rate of
speed.

Richard Hart

Lisa,

know lots of lesbian couples (I am, after all, living on Albion
Ridge, a world-famous enclave) who wouldn't be caught dead wearing,
or giving, or exchanging diamonds or gold. 

Now that’s strange because I have a ton of lesbian customers who
wear, give and exchange diamonds and gold rings. Maybe my East Coast
lesbians are less uptight than your Albion Ridge ones {- ;

Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC
1780 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02140
@Daniel_R_Spirer

Lisa,

Now that's strange because I have a ton of lesbian customers who
wear, give and exchange diamonds and gold rings. 

I have to side with Daniel on this statement. In Seattle both gay
women and men had no problem with embracing the the traditional,
archetypical, symbols of incorruptible love and indestructible
devotion.

Besides, does anyone really believe that steel hasn’t caused massive
environmental destruction or that alternative materials are somehow
miraculously shat out of baby angels arses causing no problem?

Nanz Aalund
Associate Editor / Art Jewelry magazine
21027 Crossroads Circle / Waukesha WI 53187-1612
262.796.8776 ext.228

I went back and reread my original post, hoping to discover how what
I said could have been so taken out of context as to have received
the responses it did. I didn’t think “lesbian jewelry” was the
point. The point was: “the values of modernism, post-modernism,
feminism. etc. could easily override…archetypal values.” I stand by
that point.

Lisa Orlando
Albion, CA, US