It seems to me that if a number of people want to leave the RGS en masse
in protest against the politics of that organization, now is the time.
Resignations are beginning and if any political advantage is to be grabbed
from the defeat of the Shell motion along these lines, now is the time.
Whether or not people exercise their personal choice to leave en
masse, I would agree that an alternative organization covering Britain as a
whole is necessary. This may be an alternative to the RGs but it doesn't
need to be. It can, quite simply, do its own thing, including people who are
as well as those who are not members of the RGS.
Likewise the Vancouver meeting, which is organizied via a series of
meetings around peoples' kitchen tables -- surely a grassroots international
effort if ever there was one -- may or may not come up with some kind of
international critical geography group. That is for the conference attendees
to decide, namely whether they want to organize such a thing. But even if
such an organizationis put together, it seems to me that it would be a
terrible mistake to be seeing them as mutually exclusive with national
organizations. There is no conflict at all between a strong British Critical
Geography forum and a strong international group. Quite the contrary, surely
they would aid and abet each other. Let's get on with both jobs.
I volunteer my RGS associate membership for inclusion with the en
masse resignation if someone closer to the action wants to co-ordinate it.
neil smith
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|