Red Cross Symbol

[CFLarsen]

Cynic that I am, I had just assumed that painting a Star of David on an Israeli ambulance would be the equivalent of painting a big ole target on it.

That would be applicable for any symbol.

 

[Mycroft]

I am also still unsure as to what the argument is that is being put forward as to why the IRC should adopt another symbol. All I see is a "political correctness" argument.

I can't think of any good reasons why the Red Cross shouldn't adopt as many symbols as are wanted. It seems to me entirely appropriate that an ambulance in Egypt have a red crescent, an ambulance in Denmark have a cross, and an ambulance in Israel have a star of david.

Then if similar organizations in China or India want to adopt symbols more reflective of their cultures...why not?

 

[Darat]

I can't think of any good reasons why the Red Cross shouldn't adopt as many symbols as are wanted. It seems to me entirely appropriate that an ambulance in Egypt have a red crescent, an ambulance in Denmark have a cross, and an ambulance in Israel have a star of david.

Costs, confusion and loss of control for a very important international symbol and organisation are just some that come immediately to mind.

Then if similar organizations in China or India want to adopt symbols more reflective of their cultures...why not?

Nothing stopping them, just like it doesn't stop Magen David Adom.

Still not seen anything but a "political correctness" argument put forward as to why the Red Cross should adopt yet more religious symbols.

 

[geni]

I can't think of any good reasons why the Red Cross shouldn't adopt as many symbols as are wanted. It seems to me entirely appropriate that an ambulance in Egypt have a red crescent, an ambulance in Denmark have a cross, and an ambulance in Israel have a star of david.

Confuseing though since you then have to remeber dozens of different symbols.

Then if similar organizations in China or India want to adopt symbols more reflective of their cultures...why not?

The reversed swastika (india) could cause issues.

 

[Mycroft]

Confuseing though since you then have to remeber dozens of different symbols.

Which is why the red crystal idea came forth with the freedom to put any symbol you want in the middle. It's a good compromise.

However, I'd also add that an ambulance looks a lot like an ambulance no matter what symbols you paint on it, and the real issue is the recognizability of medics and hospitals during war time. I would propose that anyone going to war with another people probably learns enough about them to know what symbol they put on their hospitals and ambulances.

The reversed swastika (india) could cause issues.

Not an unsurmountable one. Either Indians have the goos sense to pick a different symbol, or those that would be offended by it learn to deal with it.

 

[geni]

Which is why the red crystal idea came forth with the freedom to put any symbol you want in the middle. It's a good compromise.

That is the case

However, I'd also add that an ambulance looks a lot like an ambulance no matter what symbols you paint on it,

not always. This is the british samaritan.

http://armyreco.ifrance.com/europe/belgique/vehicules_legers/cvrt/samaritan/samaritan_be_09.jpg

and the real issue is the recognizability of medics and hospitals during war time. I would propose that anyone going to war with another people probably learns enough about them to know what symbol they put on their hospitals and ambulances.

Unless you are up against a coalition who use all sorts of symbols. Keeping things simple is always a good option.

Not an unsurmountable one. Either Indians have the goos sense to pick a different symbol, or those that would be offended by it learn to deal with it.

Well Isreal failed on A and I can't see B happening any time soon.

 

[Cleon]

Still not seen anything but a "political correctness" argument put forward as to why the Red Cross should adopt yet more religious symbols.

Well, keep in mind that the whole Magen David Adom/ICRC bit is a useful bit of propaganda. It's often touted as "evidence" of a vast anti-semitic conspiracy against poor little Israel.

 

[Mycroft]

not always. This is the british samaritan.

http://armyreco.ifrance.com/europe/belgique/vehicules_legers/cvrt/samaritan/samaritan_be_09.jpg

I think that illustrates my point that the real issue is military recognizeability, not civilian.

Unless you are up against a coalition who use all sorts of symbols. Keeping things simple is always a good option.

Any red symbol on a white background stands out just fine, especially in the military where everything is painted camouflage colours.

Well Isreal failed on A and I can't see B happening any time soon.

Sorry, Israel failed how?

 

[drkitten]

I can't think of any good reasons why the Red Cross shouldn't adopt as many symbols as are wanted.

Um, Mycroft.

You're a 19-year old tank commander, and you're operating out of your normal position (perhaps your driver made a navigational error or something). Three olive-drab, clearly military-style helicopters are bearing down on you. On the side of the helicopters is a symbol you don't recognize, and you're sure the model is not one of yours. In thirty seconds, the birds will be in range to launch tank-killing missiles.

Do you fire or not?

And, no, that's not hypothetical. Military medical evacutation vehicles often don't look much like civilian ambulances -- for one thing, civilian ambulances are usually fairly poor at off-road performance and getting into the sharp end. Even trucks and jeeps are routinely pressed into service by the medical corps precisely because the qualities that make them so good for transporting healthy infantrymen into the fight are also useful for transporting injured ones out.

 

[drkitten]

Any red symbol on a white background stands out just fine, especially in the military where everything is painted camouflage colours.

So you're saying that all I have to do is paint something in red and white on the side of my tanks, and you won't shoot at them?

"Get the paint, boys! I just figured out a new regimental insignia, and boy, howdy will Colonel Mycroft be surprised when we roll into his HQ and capture it!"

Sorry, Israel failed how?

Failed to "have the good sense" to pick out a non-divisive symbol. If there's no reason the Indians need to use a swastika, there's equally no reason that the Israelis need to use the Star of David. As you pointed out, any red symbol on a whilte background stands out just fine -- they could have used a red caduseus, or a hypodermic needle, or for that matter, an extended-middle-finger.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

 

[geni]

I think that illustrates my point that the real issue is military recognizeability, not civilian.

That was your point? In that case so what?

Any red symbol on a white background stands out just fine, especially in the military where everything is painted camouflage colours.

Snow? Now you are betting on no one useing a a red symbol for anything else.

In fact you don't even need snow. Red symbol on a white background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RAF_Roundel.png

Sorry, Israel failed how?

Chose a symbol that would upset people.

 

[Freakshow]

Failed to "have the good sense" to pick out a non-divisive symbol.

That says more about the people that find it divisive than it does about the people that chose the symbol.

 

[Mycroft]

So you're saying that all I have to do is paint something in red and white on the side of my tanks, and you won't shoot at them?

"Get the paint, boys! I just figured out a new regimental insignia, and boy, howdy will Colonel Mycroft be surprised when we roll into his HQ and capture it!" [/QUOTE]

I'm saying that figuring it out isn't that big a challenge. What would happen if you made your regimental insignia a red cross on a white background today?

Failed to "have the good sense" to pick out a non-divisive symbol.

Except the star of david is no more divisive than is a red cross or a red crescent.

The swastika is divisive because if its association with Nazism, but if someone were to claim it was divisive only because of its association with India and Indians, then their claims could easily be dismissed.

If there's no reason the Indians need to use a swastika…

I don’t know enough about Indian culture to know one way or another, but I don’t see a huge number of swastikas coming out of India, so I assume they are reasonable enough to be sensitive about it and choose other symbols of equal or greater significance.

As far as “sauce for the goose” and all, you seem to be going out of your way to find excuses to either offend Jews (making a swastika a red cross symbol) or to exclude Jews (baring the Star of David) while I’m the one being inclusive (everyone gets to use the symbol of their choice.)

What I said is that it wouldn’t be an insurmountable obstacle because either a different symbol would be chosen or those that would be offended would have to learn to live with it, which leaves me wondering exactly what your “sauce for the goose” argument is all about.

 

[Mycroft]

That says more about the people that find it divisive than it does about the people that chose the symbol.

Exactly! Very well said!

 

[Mycroft]

Snow? Now you are betting on no one useing a a red symbol for anything else.

In fact you don't even need snow. Red symbol on a white background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RAF_Roundel.png

A Japanese flag would be a better example, but it's beside the point. You seem to be claiming it’s impossible to accommodate the use of different symbols in different cultures, but the OP of this very thread is about the Red Cross coming up with a very reasonable solution to that very problem. Exactly what are you arguing for?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

As far as “sauce for the goose” and all, you seem to be going out of your way to find excuses to either offend Jews (making a swastika a red cross symbol) or to exclude Jews (baring the Star of David) while I’m the one being inclusive (everyone gets to use the symbol of their choice.)

...snip..

I understand your "PC" argument however given that their are many reasons why (and a few have been given) it isn't practical to allow any and all symbols surely the argument should be about dropping all religious symbols and saying "look we have one symbol - it's a diamond" not increasing the number of "religious" symbols being used?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

As far as “sauce for the goose” and all, you seem to be going out of your way to find excuses to either offend Jews (making a swastika a red cross symbol) or to exclude Jews (baring the Star of David) while I’m the one being inclusive (everyone gets to use the symbol of their choice.)

...snip..

I understand your "PC" argument however given that their are many reasons why (and a few have been given) it isn't practical to allow any and all symbols surely the argument should be about dropping all religious symbols and saying "look we have one symbol - it's a diamond" not increasing the number of "religious" symbols being used?

 

[Mycroft]

Snow? Now you are betting on no one useing a a red symbol for anything else.

In fact you don't even need snow. Red symbol on a white background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RAF_Roundel.png

A Japanese flag would be a better example, but it's beside the point. You seem to be claiming it’s impossible to accommodate the use of different symbols in different cultures, but the OP of this very thread is about the Red Cross coming up with a very reasonable solution to that very problem. Exactly what are you arguing for?

 

[Mycroft]

I understand your "PC" argument however given that their are many reasons why (and a few have been given) it isn't practical to allow any and all symbols surely the argument should be about dropping all religious symbols and saying "look we have one symbol - it's a diamond" not increasing the number of "religious" symbols being used?

I disagree that it's impractical, and the practice of allowing other symbols inside the red diamond seems to me to be an eminently reasonable compromise.

However, I also disagree it would be impractical without this compromise. If the citizens of Grand Fenwick (or whatever) revered the corkscrew as an important religious symbol and associated it with healing, I don’t see a problem with allowing them to put a red corkscrew on a white background on their ambulances. Anyone who wanted to go to war with them would just have to take a moment to show their troops a picture of what it looked like so we could avoid shooting up their mercy vehicles.

Just as I’m sure we take a little time out to brief our soldiers on other important symbols before sending them into battle elsewhere.

 

[Darat]

Weird I would have thought people here would be objecting to the political correctness of pandering to religions.