Elephant Polo

I've never made time to be much of an activist, but every now and again something comes across my desk that gets the marbles to all line up and focus for a little heartfelt scribbling. The following is one such example.

While not mandatory, the following link will appraise you of the subject matter.

Patently absurd.


December 5, 2006


Ms. Pamela Caillens
Corporate Responsibility Director
Cartier International


Dear Ms. Caillens:

I wish to suggest that the next time those within your organization who dream up and push forward a marketing ploy as entertaining as "elephant polo" merely shackle up the local Indians themselves for our collective amusement. Too drastic, you say? Might infringe upon Cartier's future market share of the sub-continent's exploding prosperity, and the certain appetite for all things glamorous and Western? I d isagree entirely. While these former subjects endured far worse for centuries than the elephants they are currently abusing on your behalf, I've yet to see a pachyderm anywhere properly mix a Gin Rickey. Think about it: all the previously “Untouchables”, are now officially “touchable”, and no doubt quite eager to submit themselves to all sorts of creative diversions for the affluent with only the faint prospect of receiving foodstuffs to guide them along. Plus, those obnoxious PETA cowboys would be off chasing some other windmill with their warped views regarding the "welfare" of animals, and that's a win-win for both parties, is it not?

PETA, being so brashly American, is not generally known for its Gandhi-like levels of patience nor civility. Get them on your side now! Think of the outstanding PR that was generated by being onboard with the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, instead of foolishly abstaining like some other companies. As your internal auditing no doubt r eflects (and your open auditing, if it existed, would undoubtedly show), consumers generally don't care about the myriad flaws brought to light during the short history of the KPCS, and that's assuming they know anything about how conflicted "conflict diamonds" are with even the most primitive levels of human morality in the first place. Does it feel great knowing that the "No Dirty Gold" types now proudly list you with other industry leaders in adopting the social, environmental and ethical standards as decreed by the so-called Golden Rules? Of course not. It only feels like business, as it should, and I propose that placating PETA i s good f or business. After all, you just sell fur clips; the furs themselves are a "lifestyle decision", not unlike cigarettes or gay bathhouse sex. I truly believe you can spin this in your favor.

In fact, if thought out properly, Cartier could redirect some of the negative energy surrounding the latest Leonardo DiCaprio blockbuster (Blood Di amond), by proudly shining light on what a conscientious global citizen it has recently become - a corporate steward brave enough to not only step forth and help finance animal sanctuaries worldwide, but openly staff them with dark-skinned orphans who will almost certainly cast big, toothy smiles when queried on life now that they've escaped the exploitation and killing fields of their childhood thanks to your social awareness. Two birds with one (4 C's) stone, so to speak. Just refrain from telling PETA about the birds…

Seriously, I must confess that the imagery of elephants being forced to do tricks by violent prodding produces another image from the not too distant past, one that took place far closer to the Swiss headquarters of Compagnie Financiere Richemont AG than Jaipur, India: that of Jews and others being forced to play "horsie" to the delight of Nazis mounted on their backs. Rather sadistic behavior. Of course it's not the same - confiscated elephant art did preci ous little to help sustain Switzerland's post-war economy - yet it is the image of animal cruelty that can do nothing but draw negative publicity your way. The recently deceased Richemont founder, Anton Rupert, is credited with having been a great conservationist. Does the subsidiary Cartier champion this view? Perhaps Mr. Rupert would disagree with the Oxfam/Global Witness statistics that claim for every gold ring produced an average of 20 tons of waste are generated. Perhaps not. Perhaps it's closer to ten tons. Either way, those that choose to adorn themselves with your company's finely crafted works no doubt consider themselves refined as well, and yet there is little culture to be found in abusing other sentient beings for enjoyment.

As for the statement accredited to Ms. Borgoltz, the firm's external relations director ("...the elephants enjoy being together in wide open spaces and being able to stretch their legs..."), I suspect she would adopt a remarkably similar at titude if, like the animals in question, the alternative was confinement in her own filth. Not knowing the woman myself, I can't speak to any proclivities or hesitations she might display personally by adding an ankush to that equation, but I suspect the psychological damage would be the same as that of the elephants' previous experiences, regardless of how "humane" or sanitized this particular stunt was being billed.

Richemont has done very well in recent years. Help sustain that wealth with some added integrity. Leave the sadism to the savages.

Sincerely,


J Exican
Elephant Enthusiast


Copyright 2007 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.