Jennifer Puma

Professor Teresa Coronado

ENGL 451

28 October 2015

Introduction

The letter discussed in this work is addressed to a Wisconsin representative of congress by the name of Henry C. Schadeberg. Schadeberg was born in Manitowoc County, WI and lived from 1913 to 1985. He earned his Bachelor’s degree from Carrol College in 1938. Schadeberg served in the United States Navy as a chaplain from 1943 until 1946 and then in the Korean conflict from 1952 to 1953. He then served as a captain in the U.S. Naval reserve until he retired in 1969. Schadeberg was a republican candidate elected into the eighty seventh and eighty eighth congresses from 1961 to 1965 and then to the ninetieth and ninety-first congresses from 1967 to 1971. Henry C. Schadeberg died a resident of Rockridge Baths, VA on December 11, 1985 at the age of 72. The letter (which will be focused on in this piece) is written by Donald L. Bright. There was nothing to be found specifically on Donald L. Blight since there are seven people from Wisconsin listed under this name, making it difficult to narrow down the information. The only thing to be understood about Bright (through the reading of his letter) is that he lived in Waterford near the Fox River. 

Water within American Capitalism

It is common knowledge that approximately 60-70% of the human body (on average) is made up of water. Water is essential to the survival of all living things; humans included. While human need for water is transcultural, perception of water is very much divided culturally. Each culture has its own values, perceptions and traditions which effect greatly how water is viewed and manipulated within each given society. It becomes important then to understand that there are perceptions of water which are very much culturally driven within America. America is a capitalistic society and therefore water and its use is viewed under these pretenses and ideals. Through the examination of this letter addressed to Congressman Schadeberg, it will become evident that, for Americans, water is very much a part of the capitalistic ideologies of United States. Although this letter seems to be serving a personal agenda, it offers a window into the agenda of others as well. Through the examination of this letter one is offered a close view of the American Capitalistic perspective on the use and manipulation of waterways and how they are both valued and maneuvered to serve human beings. No matter whose agenda is being served, in relation to this waterway, money is the object that drives and supplies it to people.

In order to fully understand the ideals which are projected onto the American waterways, one must first understand capitalism. In America’s attempt to separate itself from England, it makes an effort to function in a non-English manner. This means no longer functioning under a hierarchal style of governing. It also means that power is no longer achieved through genetics. In fact, it means that power can actually be achieved; the common person can then, under this new system, work their way from the bottom to the top. The object that drives such a system is capitalism. Under this system, it is understood that people can work hard and start a business which can earn them capital. Capital equals money and money equals power; thus births the American dream. The trouble with this system, similar to the old, is that disparity exists. Jane Ford states, “…to articulate the inequalities of an exploitative capitalistic system” (551). In order for some to gain the power of capital, the others are exploited. While the old system held power and disparity through birth right, the new/American system holds power and disparity through the obtaining of money. Money then becomes the driving point towards happiness and success. Therefore, everything within this system is viewed as a way to profit; water is no exception to this rule. Water is accessed by people who have money and the water is also valued as a means for fiscal advancement as well.   

Donald L. Blight understands these capitalistic American values when writing his letter to Congressman Schadeberg. This is evident right from the beginning when Bright starts his letter out by saying, “As one of your former campaign workers…” (1). Bright is attempting to persuade Schadeberg into taking action in Blight’s favor. He starts out by appealing to Schadeberg’s desire for capitalistic success. Schadeberg’s wealth is obtained through his position as the representative for Wisconsin in the United States Congress. Schadeberg will not be able to continue with the same type of financial success if he is not voted into office during the next term. Bright understands this capitalistic game and here he is using it to his advantage. Blight is reminding Schadeberg that he may be responsible for more future votes than just his own. Bright was involved in campaigning for Schadeberg and by beginning his letter by reminding him of this, he gains a monetary power of persuasion over the congressman. Blight understands that money talks in a capitalistic society and he is making an attempt to use this to his advantage. It is unsure whether or not Bright’s fiscal persuasion was effective especially since the problem with the Fox River was monetarily driven as well.

In this capitalistic society, money can decide who has access to water and who does not and this ideal becomes evident within this letter as well. The reader learns through further evaluation of Blight’s letter that a man named Henry Davis manages a spillway just downstream from where Blight lives. Blight explains his dilemma in relation to this by stating, “Our problem along the Fox River is ‘no water.’ It seems that Henry Davis who controls the spillway at the Rochester Dam, downstream, feels he should cater to a couple of farmers in the Wind Lake area” (1). The reader learns here, not only that Blight is upset that there is not enough water for him and his neighbors to enjoy upstream, but also that the problem is occurring due to overuse. In this capitalistically driven society, it is likely that Henry Davis’ decision to allow the farmers to use this resource is not due to the way he, “feels” but due to monetary compensation. It is safe to assume that within this American model Henry Davis is only allowing the farmers to overuse this resource because they are paying him. There are two dynamics here which feed into the capitalistic principle. One is that Henry Davis is earning capital through the exploitation of the water and the second is that the farmer is gaining capital through the use of the water. The farmer uses the much needed water in order to grow his/her crops and in turn sells the crops to people for a fiscal return.

Again Blight understands that money equals power so he uses this as a reasoning tool towards his argument. Blight goes on to say, “Although we are paying higher taxes because we have river frontage, we can’t enjoy it” (1). This argument strengthens the idea that money is the way to power. Bright clearly feels entitled to this resource because he feels that he pays for it. He could make an argument that this water is a natural resource and everyone has an equal right to enjoy it, but that is not the one argument he chooses. Blight makes an argument that falls within American capitalistic ideology by suggesting that he has more of a right to this natural resource than the others do since he uses his hard earned money to pay for it. However, the money that Blight pays through property taxes will be collected no matter what the outcome of this dilemma is. In this respect, Blight loses some of his power under this system since he does not have control over the money. It is likely that the farmers will win in this scenario, since their profit and the profit of Henry Davis is contingent upon the continuation of their overuse of the resource.

It becomes obvious through this letter that there is clearly an American approach to understanding and using water. Right from the introduction of the letter one understands that, in the U.S., if one obtains fiscal control, power is obtained as well. The examination of this letter allows for the understanding that capitalistic ideologies are pertinent in America even at a micro level and that since America’s ideologies are internalized by its people, they are projected even onto natural resources such as water. Henry Davis and the farmers view the water as a way to advance their profits. Water is a natural resource; however, in the U.S. resources are viewed as a means to gain capital. Therefore, if people have money, they have access to water. In many cases, such as this one, they have too much access to the water. In relation to this, Blight states, “With the river so low no one is able to take their boats out or fish. It is not a pretty sight to see the gravel and muddy area which the water would normally cover” (1). Bright understands that the overuse of this water is diminishing the resource, but he also understands clearly the capitalistic society under which he resides. While money can be viewed as a means to success, it can also be viewed as a means towards destruction. In this case, the farmers seem to be getting their way in accessing the water, but in the long term scope of things, no one is winning because the resource could possibly be diminished. If water becomes the object for gaining profit within a capitalistic society, there isn’t much that has the power to stop its destruction. Through examining this letter, one is able to understand how the internalization of a cultural viewpoints can still become damaging to natural recourses such as water. The ways in which cultures view water can mean the difference between its survival or meeting its demise.      

Works Cited

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress 1774-Present. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000108

Blight, Donald L. “Letter to Congressman Henry C. Schadeberg.” (1969): 1-2. University Wisconsin Parkside Archive: Box 56 Folder 10. Print.

Ford, Jane. "Socialism, Capitalism And The Fiction Of Lucas Malet: 'The Spirit Of The Hive'." English Literature In Transition 1880-1920 58.4 (2015): 551-571. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.