After tonight’s reading, I began to think that the way people view things really depends on their class, even natural resources. The upper-class who had the ability to purchase clean water saw it as commodity while the middle and lower-class thought of water as common. But since most natural resources are limited, money has to be involved in some ways. So even though people tend to define most of the natural resources as commons, only a few would fall into the “common area” and “commodity area”, while all the others fall into the “gray area”. The only commons I can think of right now are air and sunlight. Also the way people define common and commodity depends on their geographical location as well. The way people near rivers define water is definitely different from how people live near Sahara define it. (oh, I just have a random question: do I need to respond to all the questions Rachel asked on the hw page? Cause there are a lot '-') I also thought it was really interesting how after 2 decades fighting, water finally became a public resource and then people started wasting it so the government had to make it a commodity and give limits to people again. This really happened a lot and still happens nowadays. This is pretty ironic in some ways. Also I thought how the reformers said that fountains could make people more moral is a little funny. I did not find that many connections between tonight’s reading and the agricultural revolution reading, so my question is: in what ways they are connected? (maybe the answer is really obvious I just missed it >_<)
This reading highlighted crucial elements in the way we see the environment. When reading Rawson, we struggle with the idea of whether or not Water is a common resource or something meant to be purchased privately.
Interestingly, supporters of de-privatizing believed that a "plentiful supply of pure water could better the health of morals of the urban population, especially the working classes thereby transform society". Ultimately however, when Boston went to a municipal system, many of the same problems existed even after poor people had greater access to clean water. Municipal water in Boston changed the way many urbanites viewed water, changing what was at one point a privilege to a right to all citizens. The question I pose is do you think that privatization of the Boston system led uplifted the poor in Boston, or set them back even further?
To answer Aundré’s question, I’m not sure that de-privitazation set back the poor so to say, but I think that it did have a negative effect on the city overall. Especially in relation to water obtained by private charter companies, the concept and quality of water from public pumps and rain water was not an advantage to the citizens of boston. “In 1834, faced with a growing public dissatisfaction with the quality of the groundwater, the council commissioned a study of the city’s wells. The survey, based on the interviews rather than chemical analysis, showed that 30 percent of the city’s 2,767 wells produced water that nearby residents considered undrinkable” (186). It is most important, that if the public is not satisfied, than the municipal water supply system is not working out. It does not matter if the water is accessible, because if it is unusable, than it is pointless and a waste. Of course, not everyone had the money to receive pure water from private companies, but pure water should be more accessible to all one way or another, whether it be by government regulation or lower prices or anything like that. While I think that water is a common, I think that pure water is definitely a commodity. And just because it is not “open to all” in the same sense that a park is, does not mean that it shouldn't be accessible to all.
As a question of my own, is that if you are a doctor at the time, are you in favor of a municipal water system that means water for even the poorest of citizens (as it said they were), even if the water is inevitably going to be unclean, and possible provide a health hazard? isn’t dirty water just as bad as land based dirt? (look at 188).
Mingwei I'd like to respond to your question about what is a common area and what is commodity....I think in terms of public and private spaces, the working class thought of water as common because "...an entire neighborhood might patronize a single well and pay nothing for its use..."(185) The private sector had the privilege to live "privately" without needing to depend on each other for problem-solving, when they had their own access to water. I also liked how you defined air and sunlight as common resources, and I think water could have been added to that list at one point in time, but one of the effects of urbanization was re-forming citizens' "natural" connection to water.
Aundre, to attempt to answer your question, the reading starts by describing a celebration for the newly instated public water system, so I'd hazard a guess that it felt like a victory to the public sector.
....after reading Isaiah's post, I'd have to agree and say that public unclean water is kind of a slap in the face to both poor citizens and doctor's dreams. I don't think anyone can get excited about the availability of unusable water.
I found it interesting how water ( an extremely valuable commodity) was the driving force in understanding morality. I would like to touch on something Rachael mention in class about how whenever we as historians see straight lines on a map, we know people were displaced. As I was reading this article, it dawned upon me that whenever there is "social turbulence" people are displaced in the "rapid growth and social dislocations produced by the market revolution." Whether that displacement meant you could not have afforded clean water and resorted to drinking rain water, or if you were someone in favor of keeping Boston's water privatized, there was displacement and upset. Adding another point, what Henry Bowditch on page 6 of 21 was very powerful. "No body knows and no body can learn what deprivation means, who does not see the actual workings of a system which denies to the people the use of water." When we think of water and its accessibility, we usually think of people in Africa and other third-world countries who don't have clean water. This reading has helped me see that the water that comes out of our faucets was not always clean and available to the entire populous of the greater Boston area. A question I pose is what can we do as the United States to make it so people have clean drinking water and are not displaced by an outside person making the decisions.
To answer Isaiah's question, I believe there was a difference between a municipal water system compared to the water systems the poor relied on. As stated on pg.188 the poor relied on public wells for water, which often resulted in unclean water. A municipal water system provided clean water for the public no matter a person's class, which is why this system was supported by the Doctors of this time period. My question would be: Is it appropriate for a company to privatize water at the expense of those who are unable to afford clean water? and Do you believe the arguments made against water reform to be accurate?
I would like to quickly branch off of what Naya said about water as a commodity being about to be under the category of "natural resource." Now, water is growing to be one of the most valuable commodities. Nothing can exist without water and having access to unlimited water is a privileged thing. Here is a quote I found that connects to what I believe “In an age when man has forgotten his origins and is blind even to his most essential needs for survival, water along with other resources has become the victim of his indifference.”
--Rachel Carson
While petroleum and other natural resources are imperative to our survival, we often invest too much time and energy into things that in the long run will hurt our planet of water.
I'm also struggling with the inevitable fact that water has become a quickly-depleting commodity. Because of this, the whole... water industry has become privatized, and only available to those who are fortunate enough to be able to pay the rising costs. My favorite excerpts were on page 183, "...The new system was publicly owned." and "A public system, they hoped, would operate like a commons and charge little or nothing for water." This was shocking because our generation is used to water and how expensive it can be. (like the sticker shock of taking extra long showers.) This directly relates to, and adds to what Eli mentioned.
Does anyone understand what a publicly owned water system would involve? like who would pay for maintenance? Would it be monitored?
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:54 pm Post subject:
After reading all the posts, I really agreed with what everyone has been talking about. I have not finished the reading, yet, so I might not be able to answer some of the questions.
After reading some parts of the articles, I really agreed with what Mingwei said about class. I felt water became a symbol for class division. On page 183, Michael Rawson talks about the difference working class and wealthy Costonians thought of water. For working class, they wanted water to be common because everyone would be able to have clean water; but on the contrary, the wealthy ones thought that water was a way for them to show their previlege. One page 187, Rawson also stated that the “quantity and the quality of water avalible to a family reflected its position on the social and economic ladder.” And, on page 189, the author is talking about how cleaness came from water, which only the upper class people could purchasee the soft water.
And since I only read to Opposition to the Reform Vision, I would answer Kandice’s first question. I personally do not think it’s right to privatize the water because the society would become unstable. Looking at the reading, we can see there were many reformers like the temperance reformers and evangelical Christianity. We can tell that there were many issues with the water.
And, I think Mingwei brought up a really interesting point of view about the “gray area.” She said that there was no absolute common or commodity natural resources. I am thinking if the spectrum of common and commodity could shift by human just like how the public water turned into municipal system. And, I am also thinking if it was always good for nature or human to use the resources as common or commodity?
I agree with Isaiah’s idea. Water has to be common source, since “water is as essential to life and health as bread,” (193) but surely, municipal system cannot avoid having certain limit in providing decent quality of water, and that’s why private companies can exist.
This small argument is keep tickling my nerve; while reading “The Reform Vision; Water and Morality” part, we could see that reformers mentioned that unclean habitat evokes immorality, but my intuition tells me immorality brings indolence and misdeed, thus raises filthiness.
To resources, the difference between a common and a commodity has a lot to do with the demand and accessibility of the particular resource. When resource is commonly demanded and commonly accessible (common), or in another case, something that doesn’t have market at all. This particular would never become a commodity, however, when it is commonly demanded but hard to get, or the demand is enormous, it would become a good commodity.
Respond to Mingwei’s question. Comparing water to grass, water is commonly demand in the places like cities, but not the places never the rivers. Grass is commonly accessible resource in places like Pennsylvania, but not in New England. So grass became a product in New England but not in places where have flat lands and rich soil. And water became a commodity in cities but not places near the great lakes.
Water is in the gray area because it is essential to life and they are just in nature world, but sometimes the demand is too huge and pure and clean water is hard to get.
Wood and fish skirt that line, but Air and Sunlight doesn’t.(as Mingwei said)
No matter it is a country or a city, people all need water, the basic theory will be the same, they would both be transfer the water from a water rich place to a water poor place. But city is a much smaller comparing to a country like America, so one public water system throughout the whole country nearly impossible, that’s why the public Municipal water system works the best!!
In Rawson’s essay, it definitely supported the claims, he mentioned the opinions from people of different classes, and people of both poor and rich in the city and urban marginal places. In the conclusion, he stated that “during the country’s first great period of city building, when urbanites transformed natural environment into urban environment at an astonishing rate and established new connecting with the natural world”(p197)
Living in cities makes me think the natural world is far away, and living in city make me want to treasure and protect the natural world. But if I’m someone lives close to nature, I might dream about living in cities everyday.
For the next person, Where Rawson followed Cronon’s core lessons? It’s kinda hard for me.
Last edited by pche2013 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:00 pm Post subject:
To respond to Emily's question, although I am not pretty sure, I would guess it would be the state government who would pay for the public water system. This is totally a guess. If I am wrong please correct me.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum