DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 5, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 340--------------------------------------------------
#8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: TeacherRachel Date: February 21, 2019, 9:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Clean Water, Clean People
Please read pp.183-197, Michael Rawson, "The Nature of Water:
Reform and the Antebellum Crusade for Municipal Water in Boston"
Please choose on or two of the following questions as a lens for
your reading and post.
When it comes to resources, what's the difference between a
common and a commodity?
How does the story of water compare with Donahue's story of
grass, that essential resource in New England colonial farming?
Rawson argues that water existed in a gray area between commons
and commodity; are you convinced?
Are there resources in our world today that skirt that line?
What are the implications of being a little bit of both?
How might the story of water in the city be different from water
in the country?
Rawson wants you to believe that "urbanization played a more
complex role in shaping ideas of nature than we often believe."
Does his essay support this claim? How do you think living so
near a metropolis has shaped your view of the natural world?
Rawson is currently a professor at City University of New York,
Brooklyn, but years ago was a student of William Cronon's at
Wisconsin. We read Cronon two nights ago, and in an earlier
reading he proposed the following "core lessons that make
environmental history useful":
1. All human history has a natural context.
2. Neither nature nor culture is static.
3. All environmental knowledge is culturally constructed and
historically contingent--including our own.
4. Historical wisdom usually comes in the form of parables, not
policy recommendations or certainties. (Pp. 8-9 in our packet.)
How did Rawson do following his advisor's lessons? Does his
essay expose any particular strengths or weaknesses in Cronon's
way of doing history?
#Post#: 353--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: ebartel2020 Date: February 25, 2019, 2:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Rawson argues that water existed in a gray area between commons
and commodity; are you convinced?
I think Rawsons argument is convincing because he is able to
prove that giving free and accessible water to everyone would
not eliminate some environmental conditions that the city went
through. It was interesting when he said that "the law viewed
water as valuable property that the city held in trust for all
its citizens". I find this to be very true as water is part of
nature and it is the one thing we need to survive as humans,
therefore all people should have a right to have some. At the
same time, I have also heard that drinking water is becoming
less and less over time therefore, does that argument still
stand? That everyone should have a right to free and clean
water. Purifying water is not cheap and a vast majority for
people pay for their own drinking water. This question lead me
to wonder how the decline in water will affect other people and
does or should this change the law
#Post#: 354--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: nanaafiaba Date: February 25, 2019, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Are there resources in our world today that skirt that line?
What are the implications of being a little bit of both?
I do feel as if food, or rather healthy food, skirts the line
between a common or commodity.
For me, a common can be defined as something every human being
has or should have. A common is a resource or item that everyone
has the right to obtain. In continuation, a commodity is a
product or material that can be sold and purchased. No one truly
needs a commodity, but it is beneficial and pleasurable to have.
Now that I have clarified the definitions of common and
commodity in my own terms, it should be less difficult for you
to comprehend why I believe nutritious food prevails in the gray
area between common and commodity.
Healthy foods are sold as a product, but it is one that every
human being needs in order to live a long and prosperous life.
On one hand, in developed countries, many people have relatively
easy access to wholesome dishes. Grocery stores are found in
most communities. However, even in a country like the United
States, food deserts do exist. For some, the nearest grocery
store is miles upon miles away. And for lower-income families
who work tirelessly, finding the time to get to one is an even
bigger issue. The government does provide food stamps and
convenience stores are usually rampant in these communities.
Unfortunately, food stamps run out and convenience stores do not
provide the most nourishing foods.
In developing and underdeveloped countries, access to healthy
foods is even lower and is usually allotted to the rich. This is
much like how wealthy Bostonians/"those who could pay more
received [clean water] in larger quantities and with greater
convenience than their [laboring] neighbors" (196).
Moreover, healthy foods are not entirely necessary to live. It
is true, one can survive on chips and burgers every day.
However, no one can do so for very long because there are not
enough nutrients and proteins in these types of dishes, while
there would be too many saturated fats and sugars, as well as
high cholesterol amounts. Thus, one would become more
susceptible to illness as well as malnutrition, obesity, and
diabetes. So no healthy foods are not necessary, but without
them, a person's life is predictably doomed. For me, this is why
it is very strenuous to categorize healthy food as a common or
commodity.
So what do you think? Do you feel as if healthy foods are more
of a common or commodity, or even both?
#Post#: 355--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: zwalker2020 Date: February 25, 2019, 4:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Rawson wants you to believe that "urbanization played a more
complex role in shaping ideas of nature than we often believe."
Does his essay support this claim? How do you think living so
near a metropolis has shaped your view of the natural world?"
I would say it supports this claim pretty well. Urbanization, as
I believe it, can act as a shield from the natural world for
some people, which might make it so that people have unrealistic
ideas about nature if their lives aren't immersed in it. I think
living near Boston has definitely shaped my view of the natural
world too because it really makes it so that I'm not forced to
be interacting with the environment (and natural world) on a
daily basis, possibly putting me in the category of people who
aren't as informed as they could be about how the natural world
works (though I try to be as informed as I can be). I think it's
nearly impossible to be living in an urban setting for a long
time and know more about how an ecosystem would work compared to
someone living in a rural area unless you specialize in studying
nature or something like that. But I think the majority of
people living in cities just don't care as much as someone
living out in the country would about the natural world since
they aren't surrounded by it. It's an interesting thing to think
about.
#Post#: 356--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: asantello Date: February 25, 2019, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How does the story of water compare with Donahue's story of
grass, that essential resource in New England colonial farming?
The stories of water and grass are more different than similar.
A similarity between the two is that both of them existed, just
not in an easily accessible way. There was grass and water,
just the quality for both was low, especially for the lower
class. Another way the process resembles each other is they
both had to be carried over from different places Grass was a
recourse that was not available, but needed. It was something
everybody wanted and they worked as a group to get. As we
learned from the reading water was available, people just didn’t
want everyone to have it. Their similarities come when you look
at the process of attaining them. Both water and grass are
things that many of us take for granted. I think these reading
did a good job of opening my eyes to the struggle put into
getting them. While grass was a struggle against the land, water
was a struggle between people. What feels surprising now, is
that grass was thought of as more necessary than water. In
today’s society where we do not grow most of our own food I
value water more than food. Without grass more people would have
died than those without water.
#Post#: 357--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: smartins2019 Date: February 25, 2019, 6:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
pass
#Post#: 358--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: afreitag Date: February 25, 2019, 6:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Rawson wants you to believe that "urbanization played a more
complex role in shaping ideas of nature than we often believe."
Does his essay support this claim? How do you think living so
near a metropolis has shaped your view of the natural world?"
I think his essay supports his claim, as it would be hard to
argue against the idea. Merely the fact that urban areas exist
creates a lens from which to view nature. Urbanization is nearly
impossible to avoid in America, unless maybe you live in
Wyoming. The news circles around major cities and suburbs,
desire for higher education most often brings people to cities,
family connections are likely to bring people to cities (most of
the population of the US is in cities of course), and cities
bring arguably more opportunity. No matter where you are in this
country, you will see nature through some kind of urbanized
lens. (I’m avoiding talking about other countries because I
don’t believe that I’m informed enough to make a valid
argument).
Specifically in Rawson’s paper, Boston romanticized nature (I
think Zac mentioned this too), probably because city dwellers
were distanced from it. People were looking for an answer to
their problems and therefore created an unrealistic version of
nature’s benefits. Many of their arguments about health and
water were based upon facts, but the scale in which they thought
the difference would be was idealized - “Such small and
inconvenient supplies of water could not possibly provide all
the benefits for which the reformers had hoped” (p 196).
Growing up in Boston definitely affected my view on nature. Rats
were a huge part of what I thought of when I thought of nature
as a child, and I now know that isn’t on suburban minds. I have
yet to realize how exactly the city has influenced my idea of
nature, but this essay is making me think.
What have I romanticized about nature as a city resident?
#Post#: 359--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: samfarley Date: February 25, 2019, 7:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Pass
#Post#: 360--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: jbass Date: February 25, 2019, 8:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There are several interesting similarities to the Boston water
issues to how we have water today. All over the news over the
past years we have seen issues with water either depleting or
becoming undrinkable. This has never been something I ever
really thought of until looking at the history of drinkable
water in Boston made me think about how much water we actually
can use in our day to day life in comparison to water that’s
either in drinkable or unusable. Water is discerned in the text
as being a common resource which is interesting because that
contrasts the issue of it being limited. How can something that
is all around us all the time be in such low quantities?
#Post#: 361--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: Ahmed_A Date: February 25, 2019, 8:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Rawson argues that water existed in a gray area between commons
and commodity; are you convinced?
I disagree; healthy water itself should be accessed by everyone
as it reflects the “health and happiness” of an entire society.
However, the privileges the are associated with water are what
could be used for profit. For example, the quantity, convenience
of distribution, and preferred temperature are luxuries that
people pay for, and private companies make profits off them.
Because the wealthy opposed water publicity, the “urban
reformers’” arguments for it had to be powerful as well as
convincing. Thus, their arguments were a bit exaggerated, in
order to encourage people’s desire for a change. Dr. Channing,
for instance claimed the all the health benefits of meat and
vegetables are destroyed when washed by impure water. Such
compassion from doctors Comes from their frequent visits to the
slums, which allows them to see how the lack of water affects
the working class. Advocates for water's commonality also
suggested that water's abundance would prevent the abundance of
alcohol in the Bostonian culture. It was common that the drink
of choice with each meal was an alcoholic beverage, a habit that
is morally disapproved of by the Christian belief. They
justified it by pointing at the “foul-tasting” water at the
time, which led them to mix spirits with water. It was believed
by reformers that by providing purer water, alcohol use would
reduce, which would improve the overall morality of the society.
Rawson was sceptical about moral accomplishments of water
reformerty, as arrest for drunkenness actually increased since
then. But I think that the importance and value of water should
not be limited to the reduction of alcoholic use. It was one of
the arguments which indeed enticed people support, which was the
goal. Whether the effect was true to their arguments does not
matter, as the health benefits alone are worth it. While clean
water does not magically heal people, but bad water causes
epidemics. Thus, I think that clean water is a preventive
measure which should be accessed by all, as the downsides
infections water outweigh any economical disadvantages that
providing pure water creates.
[font=georgia][/font]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page