The red cross is a powerful symbol. I can only assume that within it’s own geocultural sphere, the red crescent is equally powerful. Problem: they mean the same thing, they’re not the same, and due to some incidental secondary meangings (i.e. they contain the primary symbols of the two most widely followed religions in the world), no one is likely to budge on the issue of which side should adopt the other’s symbol as the universal indicator of medical relief. And since that symbol is a rather important one, given that it functions as a battlefield shield for medical personnel and a go-to sign of medical aid in civilian emergency situations, it’s rather important that there be a general agreement of what that universal symbol should be.

Enter the “red crystal”:

But don’t worry, you get to keep your old symbol if you’re been using it for a while.

How does one introduce an entirely fresh symbol into wold conciousness to sit alongside the red crescent and cross? Apparently, one convenes a meeting of the 192 signatory nations of the Geneva convention, and they vote on it. Interesting.

Turns out India made an attempt in 1977 to make the “red swastika” the default, but that effort failed for some reason.

So from now on, should you see the red crystal, be aware: it means the same thing as if you see the red cross or red crescent. So that should clear all that up then, and we can all get along with saving each other in a more secular and nationally nuetral way.