Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:12 am Post subject: Water in Boston!
I loved reading about Boston! I am both fascinated and disappointed by how little I know about the history of my own city. I believe Rawson did a god job of both presenting the gray area, and explaining it. It seemed though that he failed to provide context at times.
I was amazed at some of the arguments the reformists had for deprivatization, like the one that theorized that cleaner, more accessible water would result in a decline in alcoholism. To me that was insane! And yet, that was what they were saying. Why weren’t they arguing solely on the grounds that water is a human right? Why did they feel they needed to come up with practical reasons? I am curious about the reasons behind these tactics.
I think ultimately the debate was a philosophical one about the nature of water as it relates to people, and not a practical one about how to deal with a crisis. There was no crisis. People were getting the water they needed. It wasn’t good water, but they were getting by on it. A free, public system was an improvement, not a salvation; it acted more as a symbol of recognition, that the city of Boston recognizes water as a human right.
Yet these reformists felt the need to employ a whole number of the city’s pre-existing problems as practical reasons for the public system. In the end they were wrong, after the installment alcoholism actually went up. Nevertheless, they were successful in their endeavor. My question is: Do you think the public system would have been installed on the argument that water is a human right alone?
It seemed to me that the demand for drinkable and usable water was actually very desperate; by the time they got the system working (or trying to work), life in the slums and poorer neighborhoods sounded like it had become almost unbearable, with the intense degree of dirtiness it was at. I was amazed at how many uses water was needed for. I’ve heard the list before (drinking, washing the body, washing the living space, cleaning the food, washing the clothes, cooking, etc.), but I guess in my forgetfulness (or maybe ignorance) I had blended them into only a necessity for drinking. I was upset by the selfishness of the upper-class, and their unwillingness to be more charitable to their dehydrated neighbors.
I feel that the article gave a proper depiction of each of the many parties and opinions involved in the issues over water. I found the part about moral improvement and its ties to water ridiculous. Of course people will still be alcoholics, even if they have a supply of water. To answer to Paul, I wish the public system could have been established on the claim that water is a human right, but unfortunately, people tend to be too selfish to accept that. They needed to create “moral” or “scientific” reasons to convince themselves and others that this system was in fact necessary.
I too enjoyed this reading more than previous ones. It got me thinking about what should be given to the public as a "Basic human right". I thought that the idea of public water cutting down on alcoholism in the community was an interesting one and it seemed strange not necessarily that it did not work but that it did the opposite. Also I enjoyed the back and forth between potential advantages of private water v.s the disadvantages. This reading reminds me of FATE a lot specifically Tragedy on the Commons. Would public water be taken advantage of or would people respect it?
To answer Puals question "Do you think the public system would have been installed on the argument that water is a human right alone?" I think probably not. this seemed to me like a question of capitalism or socialism/communism. Many things that people need are not provided to them for free such as food and shelter. We are to work for the money for these things regardless of how much we have. This also ties back into the question of whether people should be provided free water or it should come from a company. Arguments such as: "Private companies support competitiveness and therefor the best and cheapest product." V.S "Private companies strive to save money and be cheap therefor lowering the quality of the water. Would public water be taken advantage of or would people respect it?
This reading reminded me a lot of the day in the beginning of the mod when Rachel told us to notice every time we drank water through out the day. Like Paul, I am always fascinated to learn the history of places I've spent a lot of time in (like Boston). I very much enjoyed this reading tonight, because it made me think- well not to the point of a head ache. I feel guilty when I read about people not having clean water, and almost angry at myself for never fully appreciating the fact I can drink and bath in clean water at anytime.
To also answer Paul's question, it would be really cool if the public system was installed based on the fact it was a human right to have clean water. Sadly, I'm going to have to agree with Naomi, and say people in the world are too selfish to just go along with the fact it's a human fact.
I have just one silly question: Did anyone else get really thirsty while reading this? It took me longer than usual because I just keep getting thirsty and getting up to refill my cup.
To answer Peter's question "Would public water be taken advantage of or would people respect it?" i feel that now at first people would take advantage of it, but after some time either would begin to respect it or if needed it wouldnt be public anymore.
Now that there is a crisis in Haiti, a few things struck me in the beginning of this reading.
"Despereate immigrants in the Broad Street neighborhood hear the city's wharves sometimes paid as much as six dollars to gain access to a private well for the year, or smaller amounts if they simply wanted a bucket." and...
"Water companies never would invest more in a system than they absolutely had to, and the need for profit would effectively shut out the poor."
These two quotes shocked me in a way. Like its so crazy that anyone could feel comfortable with making not only people pay for one of the most important things in the world, but that that a group of people (aka a company) would be okay with not giving water to people. Forget that they are poor....everyone needs water!!
p.s. i have not finished the reading...these two things just really stood out to me...i wanted to point them out because sometimes people say they are aware, but are not. and now that people know about haiti it's something to really think about
I also really enjoyed this reading. I really appreciated learning about Boston, hearing the names of all the parts of Boston and whatnot made the reading easier to connect to.
One of the parts that interested me the most was the part about water and cleanliness. It was interesting how one of the biggest reasons for getting clean, public water was cleanliness. I have always considered health to be equated with cleanliness. But I never really noticed that I did that, I mean they are not synonyms but If someone looks dirty I immediately assume that they are also sick in some way. But the culture in America tends to equate health with cleanliness as well. It is expected that everyone shower, shave, and wear deodorant and so on. It had never occurred to me that cleanliness was once not the biggest concern.
I have noticed, while traveling outside of the U.S., that most other cultures are not crazy about being clean as ours. Even in modern countries, like France, people are not expected to be as obsessively clean as we are. I also thought it was interesting that at some point good hygiene began to separate the rich from the poor because the rich could afford to spend loads of money on water for things like bathing and washing clothes. Today, that still remains to be a class separation. But, back then it was working class from rich and now it is more like lower class from everyone else. This is better but still not perfect.
I also just want to point out that in the nineteenth century the issue was quality and quantity of water for what price and now the problem is so much bigger: Is there even enough?
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:46 am Post subject: watah
I have never really thought about the history of Boston's water quality over the past few centurys and such until I read this piece. As i read through it, I noticed a TON of similarities between the water crisis then and resource crisis now. In the reading, Rawson says, "Landlords made no provisions for access to water". This is: a.) completely and totally inhumane and terrible, and b.) a very close parallel to some governments denying their citizens the resources they desperately need (on a more extremem level, Zimbabwean government taking foreign aid food and medicine for themselves and selling it for personal profit, the citizens getting nothing). Anyway, after I made this parallel, I was alerted once again as to how disgusting humans can be. Water is one of the keys to a stable life. "...even those poor who wanted to raise their moral standing faced certain failure without a clean environment"
I wasn't 100% sure, but why would it be so hard to raise one's moral standing in a dirty environment?
To respond to Emily's question, yes, I did get very thirsty (but maybe that was because i was also eating copious amounts of cheezits).
~Samuel
The United States has always seemed precarious to me because of the conflicting ideals of capitalism and democracy. The people supporting capitalism argue that if people are left on their own, society will work. They want to remove the governmental from daily life as much as possible. The other side, those supporting democracy, want to use the government for the good of everyone. They think that if the government provides for everyone, then no-one will be unhappy. The problem with each of these systems is that neither is sustainable. Pure capitalism results in extreme differences between the poor and the rich and democracy runs out of money.
The water debate seems to be a portion of this argument, where some people argue that it should be free for all, regardless of cost, and others argue that only those who can pay for it deserve it, regardless of circumstance.
What is a good way to balance these two sides? Does our political system which seems to alternate between the two as people change their mind work best? OR IS THERE SOMETHING BETTER? What do you think?
This reading reminded me about what the natives thought was more important compared to what the Europeans thought. Rawson talked about how "the quantity and quality of water available to a family reflected its position on the social and economic ladder." I don't get why water turned into a status symbol. While I understand that it takes time and money to get proper water, isn't it like Ella said, water is a necessity. I wonder if people would be more accepting if a set group (i.e Irish immigrants, CEOs, the middle class, etc.) had an allocated amount of water to do what they wanted to do with it. Another thing that I'm just starting to notice is how big of an impact a city has on its environment. If Boston wasn't so big, and only handful of multi-story buildings, then that would take the stress off the surrounding environment. I know that seems like a "no-duh" kind of thing to say but was it right for us to become more city-oriented?
The public versus private water system debate seems obviously weighted toward public systems. Clean water is a common, and should always be viewed as nothing more than a common. The rich viewed it as a commodity so in which they could profit from. It sickened me to hear that the wealthy class ‘needed’ to profit from other people’s bare necessities. The wealthy class was already wealthy anyway. It seemed extremely selfish of them to want to earn more than was necessary.
We talked about the absurdity of having to buy the air that we breathe. Being a door-to-door water-salesmen doesn’t exactly sound any better than selling containers of breathable air. Besides, people have lived for many years in cities where the air is inordinately polluted. Couldn’t they tough out a little unclean water?
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
