 |
 |
>Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:12:38 +0100 >To: <[log in to unmask]> >From: [log in to unmask] (Tim Cresswell) >Subject: Re: politics of conferences: virtuality v reality ? >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > > >I am somewhat surprised at the strange discussions of the last few days. >Particularly the idea that Vancouver is somehow exclusive as a location - >a place that is likely to discourage participation. Andy Pratt made this >point specifically. Exactly how is Vanouver any more exclusive than >anywhere els?. I would have though that a geographer would realise that >any place is exclusive if you are a long way from it. How, for instance, >would a conference in Hull (say) be any less exclusive? How much would it >cost for a geographer from Vancouver, or Berkeley, or Alberta, or San >Diego, or Tokyo to go to Hull? I think perhaps this discussion is little >UK centric yet it should be clear that the UK and Europe have no monopoly >on critical thought. > >For what it's worth I remember my time in the midwest of the U.S. feeling >extraordinarily isolated from critical geography - much of which seemed to >be happening this side of the Atlantic. I can assure British geographers >that "we" seem to meet every weekend compared to American geographers who >seem to see each other at the AAG in some godforsaken >disciplinary-atrium-mall- unionbusting-power-space once a year. > >So if there are to be conferences at all then they have to be somewhere >and thus along way from somewhere else. I say let a thousand conferences >bloom and all gratitude to the Vancouver people who are actually doing >something. Frankly, such a conference is more needed in North America >than it is here. > >Tim Cresswell %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%