DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 157--------------------------------------------------
#8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: TeacherRachel Date: January 17, 2019, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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. and talk with each other, please...
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#: 158--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: kellyf Date: January 17, 2019, 3:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am going to focus on the questions: 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?
I am fully convinced that water exists the grey area between
commons and commodity. There are so many different 'forms' of
water, from natural lakes to bottled water. Municipal water
specifically has "many characteristics of a commodity," though
still common as, "all residents of the city had a right to it
and some degree of access." (196) Bostonians still have to pay
for water, though the city has no ground to refuse to sell. In
response to the second question, there are many resources that
skirt the line of commons and commodity. E.H. Derby even brings
up, "air, light, heat, clothing," which are more commodities
than commons. (193) They are "other necessaries of life," that
are not provided by the city. (193) However, it is possible to
make such resources by oneself. I am frustrated that these
necessities are not provided municipally, though at the same
time, water is still commodified by the government, so is it any
better? What would life be like if all the necessities of life
are provided for free? What would it be like if they were all
privately distributed?
#Post#: 159--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: Kasey Date: January 17, 2019, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to resources, what's the difference between a
common and a commodity? Rawson argues that water existed in a
gray area between commons and commodity; are you convinced?
A resource that is a common rather than a commodity would a
resource open to the public, while a resource that is a
commodity is used to be sold and is worth money. I agree that
water is in a gray area between commons and commodity because
although the hope would be water is a public and free resource
for all people, lots of the water we use for bathing and
drinking is only there because of the work that other humans
have worked for. It is ideal that all humans who need water to
survive and thrive, and it is available in lakes and at water
fountains (which is another manipulation of water to have
control over nature to provide needs for humans and bring nature
and water into urban city living). There is also the recognition
that water requires work from other humans that will collect and
sell this water creating a consumerist society for water that I
don’t believe could turn back. Therefore, water is a basic need
and is somewhat available within U.S. or hoped to be, and water
will also always be something people will pay for making it an
unknown gray area between the two commons and commodities. The
quantity and quality of water and becomes a luxury. For example,
drinking Fiji or Voss water is more expensive because of the
brand and marketers are able to sell their water by proving to
people their water is better quality than others. Water becomes
a questionable area for if all water is a common or a commodity
because of the capitalist system we live.
#Post#: 160--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: ccogswell Date: January 17, 2019, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=kellyf link=topic=9.msg158#msg158 date=1547759873]
I am going to focus on the questions: 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?
I am fully convinced that water exists the grey area between
commons and commodity. There are so many different 'forms' of
water, from natural lakes to bottled water. Municipal water
specifically has "many characteristics of a commodity," though
still common as, "all residents of the city had a right to it
and some degree of access." (196) Bostonians still have to pay
for water, though the city has no ground to refuse to sell. In
response to the second question, there are many resources that
skirt the line of commons and commodity. E.H. Derby even brings
up, "air, light, heat, clothing," which are more commodities
than commons. (193) They are "other necessaries of life," that
are not provided by the city. (193) However, it is possible to
make such resources by oneself. I am frustrated that these
necessities are not provided municipally, though at the same
time, water is still commodified by the government, so is it any
better? What would life be like if all the necessities of life
are provided for free? What would it be like if they were all
privately distributed?
[/quote]
kelly!! I exist only to disagree with you!!! I am fully
convinced that water itself is common, but clean (drinkable,
usable by humans) water is a commodity. A commodity is a
resource that can be bought and sold, and clean water fits this
definition. If it were common, we wouldn't have to pay for it,
and it wouldn't be so inaccessible to so many groups of people.
Also, this ties into one of the other questions - How might the
story of water in the city be different from water in the
country? - I think clean water in the country is far more
common, because generally lakes and streams are cleaner
themselves when they are farther from dense human population,
and potentially could be utilised by humans without having to
pay for their filtration and distribution. Urban water tends to
have chemicals in it, whether those were spilled or
intentionally dumped, as well as litter and other debris caused
by human waste. The less accessible clean water (or anything for
that matter) is, the more of a commodity it becomes.
#Post#: 161--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 17, 2019, 4:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=9.msg160#msg160
date=1547763383]
[quote author=kellyf link=topic=9.msg158#msg158 date=1547759873]
I am going to focus on the questions: 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?
I am fully convinced that water exists the grey area between
commons and commodity. There are so many different 'forms' of
water, from natural lakes to bottled water. Municipal water
specifically has "many characteristics of a commodity," though
still common as, "all residents of the city had a right to it
and some degree of access." (196) Bostonians still have to pay
for water, though the city has no ground to refuse to sell. In
response to the second question, there are many resources that
skirt the line of commons and commodity. E.H. Derby even brings
up, "air, light, heat, clothing," which are more commodities
than commons. (193) They are "other necessaries of life," that
are not provided by the city. (193) However, it is possible to
make such resources by oneself. I am frustrated that these
necessities are not provided municipally, though at the same
time, water is still commodified by the government, so is it any
better? What would life be like if all the necessities of life
are provided for free? What would it be like if they were all
privately distributed?
[/quote]
kelly!! I exist only to disagree with you!!! I am fully
convinced that water itself is common, but clean (drinkable,
usable by humans) water is a commodity. A commodity is a
resource that can be bought and sold, and clean water fits this
definition. If it were common, we wouldn't have to pay for it,
and it wouldn't be so inaccessible to so many groups of people.
Also, this ties into one of the other questions - How might the
story of water in the city be different from water in the
country? - I think clean water in the country is far more
common, because generally lakes and streams are cleaner
themselves when they are farther from dense human population,
and potentially could be utilised by humans without having to
pay for their filtration and distribution. Urban water tends to
have chemicals in it, whether those were spilled or
intentionally dumped, as well as litter and other debris caused
by human waste. The less accessible clean water (or anything for
that matter) is, the more of a commodity it becomes.
[/quote]
I find your suggestion that clean water becomes more of a
commodity as it becomes less accessible interesting, and I
essentially agree. I believe that water of any quality is
common, but it is the need to transport water that turns it into
a commodity. If people in cities had access to uncontaminated
lakes and streams, then there would be no need for private
companies or government organizations to invest money into
water, and it would not be a commodity. I think that water
becoming a commodity is due to both its treatment and its
perception. Having to transport water contributed to it being a
commodity, but so did the public's shifting relationship with
water. They began to hear it discussed in abstract terms and
massive quantities, rather than in terms of buckets and wells.
This is very much like the reduction of land as nature to
abstract squares on a map. I think this also connects to the
idea of land ownership being tied to improvement that we have
seen in previous readings. The infertile land that Europeans
encountered when they came to New England was not quite a
commodity yet. The land had to be improved until it became
useful, at which point it became, I would argue, a commodity.
Land and water are both basic components of the environment, and
at times access to suitable land and water is not at all a
concern. In the centuries of European settlement in America we
have explored, land and water both became more of a commodity
over time because it was a concern, and there became a "need" to
abstract those resources. White Americans needed more fertile
land to farm as the population grew and taxes came about, and
they needed better access to water as more and more people moved
into cities that did not have a local clean water supply. Both
water and land had to be discussed in increasingly non-natural
terms as humans began to manipulate them and deal with them in
massive quantities.
#Post#: 162--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: Cale is not me. Date: January 17, 2019, 5:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Something I did not expect to encounter in this reading was the
connection between the water reformist movement and prohibition
activists. Even if one is trying to make something more
accessible while the other group is trying to do the opposite
they both used similar tactics in drawing people to their side
and trying to make their opinions into law the main one being
that they both used the argument of morality. What I have been
taught was that there was an overlap with those who fought for
the woman's suffrage movement and prohibition meaning many
prohibitionists were women. A case they made was that with
alcohol being legal their husbands would often come how drunk
and violent and to deal prohibition would deal with this. Crime
going down and the hope that it would make society better in
other ways also went into this. In tonights reading many other
morality-based cases are made. This connection makes me think
more about the history of these morality-based arguments and how
with the change of moralities they change.
#Post#: 163--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: Cale is not me. Date: January 17, 2019, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
link=topic=9.msg161#msg161 date=1547765616]
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=9.msg160#msg160
date=1547763383]
[quote author=kellyf link=topic=9.msg158#msg158 date=1547759873]
I am going to focus on the questions: 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?
I am fully convinced that water exists the grey area between
commons and commodity. There are so many different 'forms' of
water, from natural lakes to bottled water. Municipal water
specifically has "many characteristics of a commodity," though
still common as, "all residents of the city had a right to it
and some degree of access." (196) Bostonians still have to pay
for water, though the city has no ground to refuse to sell. In
response to the second question, there are many resources that
skirt the line of commons and commodity. E.H. Derby even brings
up, "air, light, heat, clothing," which are more commodities
than commons. (193) They are "other necessaries of life," that
are not provided by the city. (193) However, it is possible to
make such resources by oneself. I am frustrated that these
necessities are not provided municipally, though at the same
time, water is still commodified by the government, so is it any
better? What would life be like if all the necessities of life
are provided for free? What would it be like if they were all
privately distributed?
[/quote]
kelly!! I exist only to disagree with you!!! I am fully
convinced that water itself is common, but clean (drinkable,
usable by humans) water is a commodity. A commodity is a
resource that can be bought and sold, and clean water fits this
definition. If it were common, we wouldn't have to pay for it,
and it wouldn't be so inaccessible to so many groups of people.
Also, this ties into one of the other questions - How might the
story of water in the city be different from water in the
country? - I think clean water in the country is far more
common, because generally lakes and streams are cleaner
themselves when they are farther from dense human population,
and potentially could be utilised by humans without having to
pay for their filtration and distribution. Urban water tends to
have chemicals in it, whether those were spilled or
intentionally dumped, as well as litter and other debris caused
by human waste. The less accessible clean water (or anything for
that matter) is, the more of a commodity it becomes.
[/quote]
I find your suggestion that clean water becomes more of a
commodity as it becomes less accessible interesting, and I
essentially agree. I believe that water of any quality is
common, but it is the need to transport water that turns it into
a commodity. If people in cities had access to uncontaminated
lakes and streams, then there would be no need for private
companies or government organizations to invest money into
water, and it would not be a commodity. I think that water
becoming a commodity is due to both its treatment and its
perception. Having to transport water contributed to it being a
commodity, but so did the public's shifting relationship with
water. They began to hear it discussed in abstract terms and
massive quantities, rather than in terms of buckets and wells.
This is very much like the reduction of land as nature to
abstract squares on a map. I think this also connects to the
idea of land ownership being tied to improvement that we have
seen in previous readings. The infertile land that Europeans
encountered when they came to New England was not quite a
commodity yet. The land had to be improved until it became
useful, at which point it became, I would argue, a commodity.
Land and water are both basic components of the environment, and
at times access to suitable land and water is not at all a
concern. In the centuries of European settlement in America we
have explored, land and water both became more of a commodity
over time because it was a concern, and there became a "need" to
abstract those resources. White Americans needed more fertile
land to farm as the population grew and taxes came about, and
they needed better access to water as more and more people moved
into cities that did not have a local clean water supply. Both
water and land had to be discussed in increasingly non-natural
terms as humans began to manipulate them and deal with them in
massive quantities.
[/quote]
This is an in interesting chain so I'm going to add to it. I
agree with the general consensus that water is a commodity based
on its use. In a neoliberal society, commodification is bound to
happen to most things as the more things you commodify the more
profits you are bound to get. People need water and if you can
make it something you need to pay for, that needs to be put in
stores, and that only people who can afford it have access to it
then water is not a common. So yes, in America I would argue
that water is a commodity. Even lots of beaches, ponds, and
other bodies of water are commodities (though not all). Water,
however, doesn't necessarily need to be a commodity rather then
a common and if it is is up for debate. (Not to be political or
anything but I think it should be a common or at least more of
one since It's pretty important to live and for not dying and I
think that stuff like that should be a right especially in
somewhere as rich as America)
#Post#: 164--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: alaina.h Date: January 17, 2019, 6:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How might the story of water in the city be different from water
in the country?
I feel as though there are so many more factors built into
cities than in the country. First of all, the number of people
concentrated in the cities cause more dynamics within the
people. For example, economic status cause issue with water as
we read in the reading. Some people will get more access to
water than others. Even if the water was a public resource,
there will still be disadvantages somehow. In the country, there
will be better access and in my head, people can control the
environment better.
The water in cities would get dirtier more easily and make the
water in a worse condition because of all the spaces around
surrounded by so many people. Channing believed “that the
hardness of the city’s well water made cleaning almost
impossible to accomplish” (188). I think this tells me that
there was nothing to do about the cleanliness of the water, it
was a never-ending cycle. The country has a more open space and
probably fewer wells for water, so people have cleaner options
for their water. I feel like the two just contrast on every
level. I think that is what the stories might look like a
surface level glance. Water in cities would be more dangerous
and people would deal with the level of uncleanliness, while
water in the country would be in a more equal atmosphere and
cause fewer illnesses and conflicts between classes.
#Post#: 165--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: renee Date: January 17, 2019, 6:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Cale is not me. link=topic=9.msg163#msg163
date=1547770138]
[quote author=Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
link=topic=9.msg161#msg161 date=1547765616]
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=9.msg160#msg160
date=1547763383]
[quote author=kellyf link=topic=9.msg158#msg158 date=1547759873]
I am going to focus on the questions: 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?
I am fully convinced that water exists the grey area between
commons and commodity. There are so many different 'forms' of
water, from natural lakes to bottled water. Municipal water
specifically has "many characteristics of a commodity," though
still common as, "all residents of the city had a right to it
and some degree of access." (196) Bostonians still have to pay
for water, though the city has no ground to refuse to sell. In
response to the second question, there are many resources that
skirt the line of commons and commodity. E.H. Derby even brings
up, "air, light, heat, clothing," which are more commodities
than commons. (193) They are "other necessaries of life," that
are not provided by the city. (193) However, it is possible to
make such resources by oneself. I am frustrated that these
necessities are not provided municipally, though at the same
time, water is still commodified by the government, so is it any
better? What would life be like if all the necessities of life
are provided for free? What would it be like if they were all
privately distributed?
[/quote]
kelly!! I exist only to disagree with you!!! I am fully
convinced that water itself is common, but clean (drinkable,
usable by humans) water is a commodity. A commodity is a
resource that can be bought and sold, and clean water fits this
definition. If it were common, we wouldn't have to pay for it,
and it wouldn't be so inaccessible to so many groups of people.
Also, this ties into one of the other questions - How might the
story of water in the city be different from water in the
country? - I think clean water in the country is far more
common, because generally lakes and streams are cleaner
themselves when they are farther from dense human population,
and potentially could be utilised by humans without having to
pay for their filtration and distribution. Urban water tends to
have chemicals in it, whether those were spilled or
intentionally dumped, as well as litter and other debris caused
by human waste. The less accessible clean water (or anything for
that matter) is, the more of a commodity it becomes.
[/quote]
I find your suggestion that clean water becomes more of a
commodity as it becomes less accessible interesting, and I
essentially agree. I believe that water of any quality is
common, but it is the need to transport water that turns it into
a commodity. If people in cities had access to uncontaminated
lakes and streams, then there would be no need for private
companies or government organizations to invest money into
water, and it would not be a commodity. I think that water
becoming a commodity is due to both its treatment and its
perception. Having to transport water contributed to it being a
commodity, but so did the public's shifting relationship with
water. They began to hear it discussed in abstract terms and
massive quantities, rather than in terms of buckets and wells.
This is very much like the reduction of land as nature to
abstract squares on a map. I think this also connects to the
idea of land ownership being tied to improvement that we have
seen in previous readings. The infertile land that Europeans
encountered when they came to New England was not quite a
commodity yet. The land had to be improved until it became
useful, at which point it became, I would argue, a commodity.
Land and water are both basic components of the environment, and
at times access to suitable land and water is not at all a
concern. In the centuries of European settlement in America we
have explored, land and water both became more of a commodity
over time because it was a concern, and there became a "need" to
abstract those resources. White Americans needed more fertile
land to farm as the population grew and taxes came about, and
they needed better access to water as more and more people moved
into cities that did not have a local clean water supply. Both
water and land had to be discussed in increasingly non-natural
terms as humans began to manipulate them and deal with them in
massive quantities.
[/quote]
This is an in interesting chain so I'm going to add to it. I
agree with the general consensus that water is a commodity based
on its use. In a neoliberal society, commodification is bound to
happen to most things as the more things you commodify the more
profits you are bound to get. People need water and if you can
make it something you need to pay for, that needs to be put in
stores, and that only people who can afford it have access to it
then water is not a common. So yes, in America I would argue
that water is a commodity. Even lots of beaches, ponds, and
other bodies of water are commodities (though not all). Water,
however, doesn't necessarily need to be a commodity rather then
a common and if it is is up for debate. (Not to be political or
anything but I think it should be a common or at least more of
one since It's pretty important to live and for not dying and I
think that stuff like that should be a right especially in
somewhere as rich as America)
[/quote]
Sorry to add to this really long chain but I really like this
question so…
Everyone should have the right to something as essential to
survival as water. I agree with Christine that the idea of water
itself is common but clean, pure water is a commodity. Pretty
much everyone has access to water -- although it might not be
clean -- making it common. However, many people have an unfair
privilege to drink pure water simply because they have the means
to pay for its transportation and filtration or because they
live in a rural area close to a natural, unpolluted water
source.
Furthering Cale’s point, I agree that water is a commodity based
on use. Many people all over the world have to regulate how much
water they use/how long they take to shower, while others are
able to take long, relaxing baths everyday. I think that when
water is used for amusement it is typically a commodity. Water
is only really necessary for drinking and cleaning (I’m not
saying people shouldn’t go swimming or anything, just that
activities like these use water as a commodity). I think that
when we use water we must acknowledge how it is being used and
the different levels of access people across the world have to
water.
#Post#: 166--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: Shi Shi Date: January 17, 2019, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Cale is not me. link=topic=9.msg162#msg162
date=1547769034]
Something I did not expect to encounter in this reading was the
connection between the water reformist movement and prohibition
activists. Even if one is trying to make something more
accessible while the other group is trying to do the opposite
they both used similar tactics in drawing people to their side
and trying to make their opinions into law the main one being
that they both used the argument of morality. What I have been
taught was that there was an overlap with those who fought for
the woman's suffrage movement and prohibition meaning many
prohibitionists were women. A case they made was that with
alcohol being legal their husbands would often come how drunk
and violent and to deal prohibition would deal with this. Crime
going down and the hope that it would make society better in
other ways also went into this. In tonights reading many other
morality-based cases are made. This connection makes me think
more about the history of these morality-based arguments and how
with the change of moralities they change.
[/quote]
How do we decipher what is moral? How often does our idea of
morality change? What external factors (such as the
~environment~) cause it to change?
I think that the idea of morality is extremely subjective. What
I distinguish as moral could be what someone else considers
immoral. Similar to Cale, I found it really interesting looking
at the history of water through a moral-based lens. I feel as
though reformers during that time period had a very focused
method of addressing issues in a way in which they can get what
they want. I'm not sure if "focused" is the right word to use,
so maybe idealistic? or determined? They used these ideas of
morality when trying to convince people with differing opinions
to side with their cause. I personally found this method of
persuasion particularly effective, because it drew attention to
other areas of possible concern that were being overlooked due
to the big water issue. I am not opposed to the ideas that they
expressed, such as cleanliness or less alcohol, but I would like
to point out their way of better appealing to opposing sides. By
addressing this issue from a moral angle, people began to
question what "morality" was/is, which in turn, affected their
perspectives on whether water should be administered freely, or
not.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page