16th February 2014, 02:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 16th February 2014, 02:40 PM by Tool.)
Thank you Kevin for your reply. It raises some serious worries. It appears that the 'diggers' really are not represented by the IfA then because I do know archaeologists who are members of the IfA, but are so not because they particularly want to or subscribe to the values of the IfA, but because whereas us 'diggers' don't have to be members, their position dictates that they are members. Not very democratic... Now I have no idea how many of your majority of the profession who are members actually want to be, or have to join to be able to hold the job they have. Much in the same way as I have to have a CSCS card even though I and many many others can see them as totally pointless. The point being is that by dint of the IfA becoming the self-appointed guardians of professional archaeology, many in the business have to be members regardless of their personal opinion of the IfA. So I see the figures as being somewhat misleading.
My reference to the BNP was not a comparison between that bunch of idiots and the IfA - I'm not that crass. It was an example of the daftness of expecting someone to join something with which they have no common ground. To myself, and as I've stated before, every 'digger' I've met, that is the case. Further, I feel that the IfA should be aware of this and acting to make themselves less alien to us, rather than us having to firstly pay money we can ill afford, jump through some hoops, all in the hope that we can then influence them enough to change. And change into what? In what way could they be relevant to us? There is also the issue of the degree with which ROs actually follow the diktat of the IfA. I suspect it's rather less than the IfA would like to think... Again, they become ROs more because it's expected than because they agree wholeheartedly with what the IfA do. Please Kevin don't be naive enough to think that just because someone pays their subs they actually agree with the IfA and don't consider them a joke/inconvenience/nothing more than some letters after their name to help get work . That is not always the case, as other factors have to be taken into account.
As you've probably seen, I do agree with your last paragraph.
My reference to the BNP was not a comparison between that bunch of idiots and the IfA - I'm not that crass. It was an example of the daftness of expecting someone to join something with which they have no common ground. To myself, and as I've stated before, every 'digger' I've met, that is the case. Further, I feel that the IfA should be aware of this and acting to make themselves less alien to us, rather than us having to firstly pay money we can ill afford, jump through some hoops, all in the hope that we can then influence them enough to change. And change into what? In what way could they be relevant to us? There is also the issue of the degree with which ROs actually follow the diktat of the IfA. I suspect it's rather less than the IfA would like to think... Again, they become ROs more because it's expected than because they agree wholeheartedly with what the IfA do. Please Kevin don't be naive enough to think that just because someone pays their subs they actually agree with the IfA and don't consider them a joke/inconvenience/nothing more than some letters after their name to help get work . That is not always the case, as other factors have to be taken into account.
As you've probably seen, I do agree with your last paragraph.