The Red Cross and Games

ehhh..... I thought it was because using the "cross" to indicates healing has a fundamental flaw. It may be automatic in western country but i don't think any Muslim or Jew will agree with "red cross" = "healing". So Bioware just took that sign away directly. Turns out that Bioware is not that .... understanding.

 

... That's retarded ...

I mean - really, the symbol is just taken as 'healing' - not as 'ZOMG! The Red Cross Organisation! Ho Noes!'...

 

May seem a little picky but they do have that right. Gamers could use some form of the caduceus. Doubt that anyone has copywrite claim to that ancient and pre-christian symbol.

 

I don't think that they are wrong to err on the side of caution.
If frivolous use of the symbol in some way causes people to be less respectful of its meaning, or to become more callous in their attitude towards "Red Cross" - its the asse(t)s of the Red Cross which are on the line.
Bear in mind that the Red Cross operates in some rather "non-permissive" environments, and there are already people who do not care about the symbol and who target the Red Cross (read: shoot at them).
In short (or maybe not): the safety of the Red Cross personnel is dependent on the universal understanding (by even the most poorly educated and uninformed) that the Red Cross is a neutral organization and that its members are non-combatants. Any use of the symbol by others, whether in real life or in a game, which may compromise this understanding, may in turn compromise the safety of Red Cross personel.

This may seem a bit much for such a small issue, but when you are sending people into "non-permissive environments", it is probably the better policy to go that extra mile.

 

Universal understanding of the healing aspect.
I am talking about the neutrality and non-combatant aspect.

QUOTE:

"[..] the safety of the Red Cross personnel is dependent on the universal understanding (by even the most poorly educated and uninformed) that the Red Cross is a neutral organization and that its members are non-combatants."

 

Hah, good grief. I seem to remember that NWN had a red cross on the healing kits, but they had to be removed due to this reason.

 

Well, apparently you cannot see how the Red Cross is undermined by computer games.. and quite frankly, neither can I.
That, however, brings us to the main thrust of my tentative argument, and the reason why I quite deliberately wrote: "err on the side of caution":
I do not have to drive a vehicle marked with the Red Cross symbol through some unwelcoming part of the world, nor do I have any responsibilty toward said vehicle-driving people, and I am inclined to suppose (though I have no evidence to support it) that neither do you.


There are, however, people who do this, and there are people who have this responsibility and I can understand if they feel that the burden of proof is not theirs to carry.
After all: in the gaming-world this is only a matter of GUI (or whichever term properly applies), but in the business of the Red Cross it is a question of vital importance.

Should I attempt a guess, I would suggest that the fear arises that it might become an assumption that the Red Cross is more loyal to "the good guys" than "the bad guys". I would suppose that the Red Cross in many parts of the world already suffer under the suspicion that they are more sympathetic to the western nations, than to non-western nations (hence the use of the Red Crescent in the Middle-East). Many, if not most, computer games are produced in the west and may reflect western values in ways which are imperceptible to us, but which are jarring to those who do not share these values. If the Red Cross becomes closely associated with these values, they may transform from "a neutral party" to "the enemy" in the eyes of non-western combatants.
This may be improbable, but if it is in any way possible, is it not the wiser move of the Red Cross to pull the plug?

[More sh.. eh stuff]

I was thinking about it, and wanted to add something further.
The way that the Geneve convention and International Humanitarian Law works (to my understanding), those who seek or receive healing and treatment under the symbol of the Red Cross or Red Crescent are by this act declared to be hors de combat (the term used in conventions, meaning "out of combat").
This means that they may no longer be targetted for hostile actions, and that they may no longer participate in hostilities! If the Red Cross or Red Crescent is seen as being a part of conflict, i.e. that the facilities and resources of the Red Cross are used by active combatants to bolster their capacity to continue fighting, then the concept of "free haven" embodied in the use of the symbols in accordance with international law becomes null-and-void.
I think that this is very much an issue of values and perspective; namely that the Red Cross are already hard pressed to maintain this distinction between combatants in combat, and former combatants now out of combat. Therefore anything that is seen to threaten this distinction is aggressively persecuted by the Red Cross.
Those are (at least) my late night ponderings.

[ March 10, 2007, 04:00: Message edited by: Damwa ]

 

Would that be the wisest move, now?
The whole idea around the symbol(s) is immediate recognition; the Red Cross as a symbol of "safe haven" exactly because of its christian conotations is immediately recognizable as such. Keep in mind that this use of the symbol originates from the european theatre of war, and not modern battlefields. - At that time nobody was considering the problems of introducing the symbols into non-christian battlefields.

Suppose then that you wanted to invent a new symbol. How would you go about disseminating it?
First off, you would have to change the wording of numerous international treaties concerning the rules of war, etc.
Secondly you would have to make sure that people around the world actually knew and recognized the symbol. Daily airings on c-span wouldn't be quite enough.

It is true that the Red Cross symbol in itself is flawed relative to international use, but it is also true that it is virtually impossible to create a universally recognizable symbol. The Cross and Crescent are appealing, because they already have meaning, not in spite of this.

[Addendum]

The use of the red cross on white background is probably chosen because the contrast increases the visual prominence and recognizability even over great distances.
The specific use of the red cross in regard to the subject at hand dates back to 1864. At which time there was no conflict between islamic and christian cultures in any real sense, as far as I am informed.


[EDIT]

I understand that it always seems silly when someone comes along and points their finger at fiction, but in this particular circumstance it does seem to me that the Red Cross are standing on the firmer ground. They have real problems to deal with; they have real dangers to contend with, and the issue of a symbol that is universally accepted as a sign of "safe haven", is something very problematic and fragile, indeed.
One cannot simply create a symbol. The symbol used must carry some weight in and of itself. That is why religious symbols are used. Because there was a time when even soldiers were hesitant to attack those who sought shelter under the sign of the local deity. It may seem lame and vacuous to us modern folk, but what else is there?

[ March 10, 2007, 22:38: Message edited by: Damwa ]

 

Actually recently the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement *has* made a new symbol to represent a religious-free one. Read it there

 

It might work over a wide enough time-horizon.
Yet I think that the problem of dissemination is not related to all of us westerners with the tv and the internet and the what-nots, but the guy in Sudan with an AK and a grudge, or in Congo, or Liberia etc.
And also; I have never seen that thing before in my life.