From the BBC:
The Swiss government is hosting two days of talks in Geneva in an effort to agree on a new emblem for the International Red Cross
At the moment, the only two emblems recognised under the Geneva Conventions are the red cross and the red crescent.
Some countries are reluctant to use either symbol and want a new emblem which has no religious connotations.
There is a proposal for a neutral emblem: a red diamond on a white background, called the Red Crystal.
If the talks in Geneva go well, the Red Crystal is likely to be adopted at a diplomatic conference later this year.
Most countries, including Israel and Arab states, appear to be in agreement after years of negotiations.
[…]
The IRC’s traditional symbol, the red cross, has been a target of attack in the past in areas controlled by Islamic militants.
But the red cross was never designed to have religious signifance. It is a reversal of the Swiss flag and was intended to signify neutrality.
However, in the late 19th century, the Ottoman Empire began using the red crescent to protect its medical staff during war.
The crescent was recognised under the Geneva Conventions in 1929.
But Israel’s Magen David Adom Society uses the red star of David. This has never been recognised and so the society is still not a full member of the Red Cross movement.
[my emphasis]
This is certainly a welcomed development—though clearly the initial mistake was granting official recognition to the Red Crescent to begin with, giving rise to the demand for the red star of David in 1930. In what turned out to be an early example of the implicit surrender to semiotic drift inherent in such nods to political correctness (the Red Cross should have continued to insist that the cross was not a religious symbol but was rather a reversal of the Swiss flag, and so was no more imbued with religious significance than is a lowercase ‘t’
, the Red Cross effectively allowed others to signify it, and so to problematize its function.
I hold out no hope that the fundamental error, an unwillingness to stand up for the intentional function of signs, has been fixed—if anything, PC surrender is far worse now as an established means for treating iconic symbols—but if starting from scratch is what it takes to put an end to silly wrangling over ownership of symbology, then so be it.
(h/t pigilito, who has more)
In lieu of a red cross, perhaps the ICRC should consider a red hajib.
How about a jar of urine with nothing inside? Who could be offended by that?
Great old Northeast Mississippi joke – probably found elsewhere too, no doubt. The punchline is when the old farmer looks at the nurse holding the specimen jar who’s just asked him “Is this urine?” and he turns and jabs a finger at his wife and says:
“No, it’s herr-en.”
Rimshot!
BECAUSE OF THE NEUTRALITY!
Is i really ge ing o he poin where people are going o be offended by he lowercase le ers be ween ‘s’ and ‘u’ because i looks kind of like a cross?
Because I’m loa he o offend.
How about this:
“PLEASE DON’T SHOOT ME”
Wow, that’d unreadable…..
From the Skeptics Dictionary:
Nuetral my ass.
Are they gonna change the name then too?
International Red Crystal. Sounds kinda stupid if you ask me.
Does the ARC have to follow suit? I hope not.
Just playing Devil’s advocate here:
Why did Sweden originally put the cross on the flag? What did it symbolize?
tw: wish – I wish the rest of the world could see what the fundy Islamists realy, no, I mean reeeally want to do to us.
Sweden?
And will there be an alternative relief organization for the carb counting refugees like “International Red Crystal Lite”?
Tom must’ve meant Switzerland.
Here is some comprehensive reading on the history of the Swiss flag.
The RED CRYSTAL!!!
The forces of Zelda prevail.
Maybe they could just change the name to the “Red Plus Sign”.
Tom M…I’m going to assume you meant Switzerland vice Sweden.
From the Embassy of Switzerland in the United States’ website:
“Among the flags of contemporary European countries, that of Switzerland is one of the most ancient and one of the most modern. It has a white cross in a red field; the cross is the same length on all sides and each arm is one-sixth longer than its width. The flag looks back upon 700 years of history. To trace the origin, one must go back to beginning of the Confederation. By the early Middle Ages the cross was commonly used on coins and seals and, as a symbol of the Christian faith, it was carried into battle on the banners of the various warring parties.”
[…]
“The use of the red cross on a white background, which is actually the Swiss flag reversed, was granted to the International Red Cross to commemorate the organization founded by Henri Dunant, citizen of Geneva.”
I certainly don’t have a problem with a cross being used by the IRC, because I’m a Christian. But its sybolism is clearly that of a specific faith and that causes considerable problems in many parts of the world that don’t share that faith. Modifying the symbol to allow the mission of the IRC to become further accepted by more nations is a good thing.
They could just co-opt the “Target” symbol. Everyone likes that.
Correction: “Embassy of Switzerland in the United States” should read “Embassy of Switzerland in Washington, D.C.”
Red Crystal? That’s high frickin’ comedy to excise religious symbols and replace them with symbols of pagan mysticism–SO AS NOT TO OFFEND ANYBODY (that matters).
I have the perfect design
It’s a large white circle, with a slightly smaller red circle inside that, a slightly smaller white circle inside that, a slightly smaller red circle inside that, a slightly smaller white circle inside that, and finally a small red circle in the middle.
Visualize that. It can’t miss!
How about The Red Emoticon?
For those with trouble visualizing, it would look something like this.
That would be perfect SI. I love the visual of hundreds of medics running through a battlefield with giant red and white smiley-faces on their backs.
It could be programmed to be a smiley face when things are OK, a frowny face when people are shooting at it, and the eyes could turn into x when it gets shot.
If we’re looking for a word that begins with “C” that everyone finds non-offensive, how about:
– Clown. Everyone likes clowns. And in times of disaster we could all say, “Send in the clowns” and feel good about it.
– Cuckoo (bird). They’re funny and unoffensive. Same as above: “Send in the cuckoos!”
– Cousteau (as in Jacques). Everybody loved his underwater exploration films and it’d make the French happy, something we should always strive for.
– Courtesan. My personal favorite. Imagine the positive response to the phrase, “Here comes a truckload of Red Courtesans to help us in our time of need!”
The possibilities are endless. But “Crystal” is far too pedestrian and brings to mind table salt or some illicit drug. “Dude, gimme another hit of Red Crystal, maaaann.”
Red Crystal? Why not just a White Castle?
It could be programmed to be a smiley face when things are OK, a frowny face when people are shooting at it, and the eyes could turn into x when it gets shot.
And does this when it’s stunned.
BECAUSE OF THE CONNOTATION!
White = whitey rules the world!
Castle = crusades!
WHITEY CRUSADER!
Or how ‘bout the sillouhette of a big mug of hot chocolate. Everyone loves the chocolate.
I think we’re onto something here with the Red Emoticon. We can make it interactive and use all the common emoticons. That would provide immediate feedback to Red Emoticon Headquarters based on the displayed emotional state of the workers in the field.
Amazing that a red cross based on the inversed swiss flag has a religious connotation and should be changed while the flight 93 ‘Red Crescent’ memorial is simply a design which harmlessly looks like a symbol of the religion that drove the whackjobs to kill thousands.
TW : Close – I hope we are close to the point where more people give the finger to Political Correctness.
In that vein, I think that the Triforce of Wisdom would make a much better symbol. Or maybe a Mario 1-Up mushroom.
Sorry, everyone,
I goofed. Since I am at work my default “incompetence” mode is always active.
My point is that we have to get that part of the argument out of the way. They will say, “it was inspired by christianity”. Yup, but what is important is what it does, not what it vaguely, at some point several steps down the road kind of sort of meant.
If ICRC members run from the Red Crystal, will Sandmen be deployed to wipe them out?
What is needed is something instantly recognisable and understood worldwide.
I propose one of these in Red.
Notwithstanding that the Red Cross reflected Christian principles when it was created, the Red Cross chose the symbol of a reversed Swiss flag not to reflect Christianity, but to
show neutrality.
The story is at Swiss-info.org (I’m too lazy to look up the complete link, but it should be easy to find).
Surely someone can work up some offense to the color red. It represents Hinduism. It represents Kabbalah. Godless communism.
I think they should go with a neutral color, like grey. Or hey! A rainbow!
The Rainbow Crystal. That sounds very healing.
Vladimir: We must wait on the design. Godot will bring it.
Estragon: I hear it is only white – nothing else. When he brings it, surely everyone will like that.
Vladimir: No. Some will say it represents the cleansing of the soul… or the color of the body. The debate will not end without any kind of symbol at all.
Estragon: Yes. And I think it is already taken. When displayed, already you are taken prisoner or shot. He will not come. I’m going to hang myself.
Why a Red anything? Just keep the white background and don’t put anything on it.
Seems the most appropriate, to me.
Oops, sorry MC—I missed your comment. But I still think it’s the most appropriate.
I guess Billy Crystal is out of the question, the whole Joooooo thing and all.
McGehee – Ha! Great (or blank?) minds think alike!
I tried to make the red smiley face flag in Photoshop, and there’s a problem: it looks like the Japanese flag.
This discussion is kind of hyperbolic. No one is trying to ban the Red Cross, just to think of a bland alternative for non-Christian societies. Fine (yawn).
(As a hypothetical, imagine if the Soviet flag had been the model, and ambulances drove around with the red hammer-and-sickle. Would you feel it was unreasonable to want a neutral alternative. Which is _not_ to suggest that Christianity should be compared to Communism, but rather that the right to dislike is in the eye of the beholder.)
But I really like the idea of the red smiley face!
(not joking, I really do!)