When examining the views of Napoleon Bonaparte Broward, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, and The Sun newspaper it is possible to distinguish between conservation, social reform, and environmental reform. Broward supported environmental reform, but opposed conservation in favor of social reform. Douglas for the most part favored conservation, but was not persistent, and was motivated by the view that conservation benefited the economy. The Sun newspaper opposed conservation and attempted to link their view with serving the people and improving the Everglades, and linked support for conservation with subservience to corporations.
Napoleon Bonaparte Broward represented those who believed that drainage of the Everglades improved it, and that the state …show more content…
Similar to Broward, Douglas did not support or oppose every attempt at conservation. Initially like Broward, she supported drainage, believing that if the land was used for agriculture, it would add wealth to the state. However, her view would change over time. In time she would come to “[believe] that the Everglades embodied commercial promise for South Florida’s future.” Even after her view changed, she wasn’t against all attempts to change the Everglades. She supported the construction of a highway through the Everglades. While many like Douglas supported conservation, they also supported making the most effective use of natural resources and avoiding waste. In addition, she believed that the Everglades could be improved. This is why she supported the C&SF project, going so far as to say that the project “would ‘keep the water of the Everglades in balance.’” However, when it became clear that it was inflicting serious environmental damage on the Everglades, she began to regret her earlier support of the project. Douglas’ views on the Everglades seem inconsistent. She initially supported drainage and later changed her mind. Even then she was willing to support reclamation as well as changes to the Everglades. However, it is likely that instead of supporting conservation for its own sake, Douglas was simply …show more content…
They promoted the view that newspapers such as The Times-Union opposed drainage of the Everglades solely because “the greed of its owners has been thwarted by the arm of the law, and the ravenous cormorant rages in its fury and disappointment.” In effect, support of conservation was attributed to subservience to corporations. At the same time, support of drainage was linked with support for ordinary Floridians and social reform. Furthermore, newspapers which supported drainage made the argument that “Governor Broward was elected to office on the Everglade drainage issue. That by draining the Everglades, Broward was simply doing what the people had elected him to do. However, support of the drainage project wasn’t portrayed as opposition to conservation or environmental reform. Instead it was seen as a way of improving the Everglades. This is a view that is very similar to that held by Broward. As mentioned previously, he felt that drainage of the Everglades would benefit both ordinary Floridians and the state government, and accused opponents of being subservient to corporations. The views held by The Sun newspaper may have been designed specifically to match those of Broward’s because he was the
Napoleon Bonaparte Broward represented those who believed that drainage of the Everglades improved it, and that the state …show more content…
Similar to Broward, Douglas did not support or oppose every attempt at conservation. Initially like Broward, she supported drainage, believing that if the land was used for agriculture, it would add wealth to the state. However, her view would change over time. In time she would come to “[believe] that the Everglades embodied commercial promise for South Florida’s future.” Even after her view changed, she wasn’t against all attempts to change the Everglades. She supported the construction of a highway through the Everglades. While many like Douglas supported conservation, they also supported making the most effective use of natural resources and avoiding waste. In addition, she believed that the Everglades could be improved. This is why she supported the C&SF project, going so far as to say that the project “would ‘keep the water of the Everglades in balance.’” However, when it became clear that it was inflicting serious environmental damage on the Everglades, she began to regret her earlier support of the project. Douglas’ views on the Everglades seem inconsistent. She initially supported drainage and later changed her mind. Even then she was willing to support reclamation as well as changes to the Everglades. However, it is likely that instead of supporting conservation for its own sake, Douglas was simply …show more content…
They promoted the view that newspapers such as The Times-Union opposed drainage of the Everglades solely because “the greed of its owners has been thwarted by the arm of the law, and the ravenous cormorant rages in its fury and disappointment.” In effect, support of conservation was attributed to subservience to corporations. At the same time, support of drainage was linked with support for ordinary Floridians and social reform. Furthermore, newspapers which supported drainage made the argument that “Governor Broward was elected to office on the Everglade drainage issue. That by draining the Everglades, Broward was simply doing what the people had elected him to do. However, support of the drainage project wasn’t portrayed as opposition to conservation or environmental reform. Instead it was seen as a way of improving the Everglades. This is a view that is very similar to that held by Broward. As mentioned previously, he felt that drainage of the Everglades would benefit both ordinary Floridians and the state government, and accused opponents of being subservient to corporations. The views held by The Sun newspaper may have been designed specifically to match those of Broward’s because he was the