Bold Native Film Analysis

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “One has the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” While noncooperation and civil disobedience have been effective in social justice movements around the world, it is a different situation with the animal rights movement. The film Bold Native, directed by Denis Hennelly in 2010, reveals that addressing the superficial problems is not enough. If that is the case, how can we avoid animal exploitation? One would think the one approach would to be what Charlie Cranehill did which was coordinate a nation-wide action to gain awareness. While public awareness is crucial for movements, it does not address the root causes of animal abuse and oppression. One would think another strategy would be confronting businesses that run or depend on animal …show more content…
The solution, however, does not mean terminating support of the food market nor resorting to small-scale economies. Conversely, there can be systematic changes such as collective action and information availability.
Collective action on multiple levels – businesses and farmers, government and consumers – is necessary for change to occur. Bold Native demonstrates why. Towards the end of the film, the woman activist met with Richard Cranehill (Charlie’s father) who ran a company. After Richard’s ordeal with his son, he told the woman that he would step down from his position. While it is a noble move, it does not change anything in the business – the successor would most likely run the business in the same fashion.
The government is the most important factor in establishing systematic change because it has the authority to establish laws and rules, through regulation, for animal welfare on farms and in laboratories. Not only is good regulation in the interest of animals, but also serves interests of farmers because they can have a moral conscience about their