You don’t need to look past its title to understand why the South African children’s colouring book, From the River to the Sea, has been the subject of enormous controversy since its publication in February this year. But does it truly deserve its divisive reputation? Is it really as harmful to children (and wider society) as its detractors are making it out to be or is it just another case of hysteria built around some of us not liking what it happens to be saying?
Getting the Facts Straight
First, some context. The title, of course, refers to the familiar rallying cry heard at pro-Palestinian rallies and on college campuses across the world since 7 October last year. It’s rather older than that, of course, but it has been embraced with particular vigour in the months since Hamas - a radical-Islamist terror group and the elected leaders of Gaza - invaded Southern Israel on the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah and proceeded to rape, mutilate, torture and murder some 1 200 people, including women, children and Holocaust survivors, before absconding back to Gaza with a further 250 hostages – 109 of which remain in captivity, with at least a third confirmed dead.
This attack was a clear and decisive declaration of war by Hamas against Israel and what has followed has been one of the worst wars in Israel’s history – if not the worst – that has also taken a heavy toll on the Palestinian civilians of Gaza, who have seen loved ones die and their homes and earthly possessions reduced to rubble in the ensuing battles between the Israeli Defence Force and Hamas.
It’s a horrible, tragic situation that draws strong opinions from all sides, but these are the basic facts behind it. And these facts matter. As, indeed, do the facts around what “from the river to the sea” actually means. Some, who usually don’t even know which river and which sea are being referred to, insist that this is simply a plea for the freedom of the Palestinian people from the Israeli occupation. But what it actually is calling for, is the eradication of the State of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state from the Jordan river to Mediterranean Sea.
Some, of course, understand that, but insist that this admittedly maximalist approach is simply a repudiation of the two-state solution in favour of the establishment of a single, liberal-democratic state across the entire territory. But they are either ignorant or indifferent to the fact that this is not how the phrase is used by those in the Middle East who invented it and push hardest for its use; that what Hamas or the Islamic Republic of Iran call for, quite explicitly, is the establishment of an Islamist caliphate across the entire region that has no space for anyone but those who practice their same particularly regressive and extremist version of fundamentalist Islam.
It is upon this backdrop that this colouring book exists. It may feature some cartoons by Nathi Ngubane, a well-respected cartoonist, but what is important is the laying out, visually and in text, ideas like Intifada and martyrdom, and the representation of Palestinians as ultimate victims and Israelis as cruel oppressors.
That this book is, fundamentally, a piece of propaganda is hardly up for debate. The only question, really, is what kind of propaganda it represents, and just how detrimental it might be to those young, impressionable minds who stumble across it.
James Myburgh has addressed some of the historical aspects in his article on this website, so for now, let us instead focus in on the intentions behind the book, how it fits into the wider world of kid’s lit, and its developmental and psychological impact on its young readers.
Why this book is different
More than simple entertainment, children’s literature is, fundamentally, one of the most effective tools that parents and teachers have of instilling in children their values, culture and religious beliefs. The media we consume affects us at any age, but for children it literally helps transform them into the adults they are to become.
Which means that, by definition, most forms of children’s literature and entertainment are “propaganda” of one sort or another. It’s why the best and most enduring of “kid’s lit” has a strong and clear moral underpinning. It’s why children of religious parents are often exposed to plenty of books relating to their religion from a very young age. And it’s also why fundamentalist parents are so quick to call for the censorship, even the outright banning, of children’s books that they feel betray their values. That they’re frequently in the wrong, especially when it comes to books aimed at teenagers and above, doesn't change that the underlying impulse is understandable.
The way kids consume media of any sort is fundamentally different to the way adults do and is, therefore, easy to exploit. As educational psychologist, Ashley Jay, explains, “It’s important to note that children's brains are still developing, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for executive functions like decision-making and impulse control. This makes them more prone to impulsive thinking and behaviours and less able to critically evaluate the information they consume. Older kids, in particular, have heightened sensitivity to rewards and social validation, which media platforms can exploit in order to maximize engagement and emotional response.”
But if this is true, is it simply the case that From the River to the Sea isn’t fundamentally different from other children’s literature, except that it happens to feature content that some of us happen to disagree with?
Alas, no. It’s not just what it says, but how it says it and what, ultimately, its goals are. Take, for example, the controversial works of the likes of Roald Dahl, J.K. Rowling, Philip Pullman, or Enid Blyton. Parent groups have been up in and arms at once point or another about all these authors. Dahl’s grotesqueries, Pullman’s anti-religious messaging, Blyton’s racial prejudices, and Rowling’s uncanny ability to annoy both trans-activists and fundamentalist Christians are all well-documented.
Fundamentally, though, these books always had a clear directive: to entertain their young readers. If any of their moral underpinnings conflicted with those that parents are trying to instil in their kids, it’s easy enough for parents to explain their reservations as they read them these stories - or, in the case of older kids, when they have vetted the book that their kids choose to read by themselves. These books just require the active engagement of parents. This can turn even “offensive” material into a real learning opportunity.
With From the River to the Sea, though, it is clear that its purpose is to indoctrinate its readers into a particular political ideology. Even the aspects of it that are meant as pure entertainment – the actual colouring in – are used as a means of drawing its unsuspecting audience into its worldview. As Jay explains it, “Take the example of [this] colouring book, which on the surface can be perceived as innocuous, yet if it’s true purpose is to promote a political agenda, particularly a biased one, there is essentially a deceptive meaning to it which indicates that its real purpose is not for children to engage in an innocent play activity, but rather to use the book to absorb the disguised message subconsciously. Such content may aim at presenting a subtle communication, but in reality its power cannot be under estimated, as it can serve as a tool to help shape children’s views and beliefs without their conscious awareness - leading to further internalization of biased messages.”
She makes it very clear that what a book like From the River to the Sea does to a child’s mind is both targeted and multi-faceted, and may well cause long-term psychological damage to a child’s emotional, intellectual, physical, and moral development.
The sanitization of hate and violence
However duplicitous its manner of delivery is, though, the messages the book tries to impart to its young and vulnerable readers are even more problematic. Using a colouring book to instil a certain political point of view is one thing, but what happens when that point-of-view is closely aligned with genuinely destructive behaviours?
From the River to the Sea, admittedly, contains no clear and obvious calls for violence, but what it does do is devote a page a piece to the fundamentally violent ideas of martyrdom and Intifada, two concepts that it explains just enough to get kids curious, while at the same time painting both as two of the loftiest achievements available to a Palestinian.
Spelling out that these things mean committing targeted terror attacks on civilians, including children, and then getting killed in the process, presumably wouldn’t sit well with its intended audience who - not least in a culture that venerates superheroes - would immediately recognize such acts as obviously evil. No, what this book does is something much more insidious. It reframes the whole situation as one where Israel, and by extension Israelis, are depraved villains who at every opportunity do everything they can to oppress, hurt and kill the poor, innocent Palestinians.
They’re so horrible, in fact, that the brave, heroic martyrs of Palestine are simply left with no choice but to fight back to save themselves and their families, even if it means their untimely deaths. In this light, both “martyrdom” and “Intifada” are nothing less than the most heroic acts imaginable; ones easily befitting a Superman or a Spider-Man.
By removing both the grizzly reality, and any sort of human context, and then associating such words with heroism, bravery and goodness, the book seeks to warp that basic sense of right and wrong that is so deeply ingrained within their unconscious mind. This sort of propaganda also exploits the fact that in this period in a person’s life identity really starts to form. As Jay puts it, “During childhood, kids are in the process of forming their identities and are highly influenced by the attitudes of the people around them and their surrounding environment. Media manipulation can exploit this critical time in development by promoting certain behaviours or ideologies that children may adopt uncritically.”
This is only further cemented by having Intifada and martyrdom matched with another concept raised in this book: steadfastness or “sumud”. Even as the book tacitly endorses violence as the only valid form of resistance and glorifies a violent death as the holiest fate for a Palestinian, it beseeches its young readers to remember that no matter what happens, no matter how many die in this violent struggle, Palestinians must stand strong and continue resisting the Israeli occupation – which, if the title wasn’t clear, refers here to the entire land of Israel, not just Gaza and the West Bank.
There is no mention of negotiation or compromise or striving towards co-existence in “sumud”, as it is presented. The “from the river to the sea” call represents a firm commitment to a never-ending cycle of violence, and it is this message that is being fed into the hearts and minds of the most vulnerable and impressionable among us.
Further psychological destruction
There is more going on here than just cementing a particular ideology, or even set of ideologies, in the easy suggestible minds of young children. The psychological ramifications of this sort of propaganda in children is ultimately far more pervasive and far-reaching.
“When children, particularly young children, are exposed to a one-sided political narrative, it can have a severe impact on their emotional, cognitive and psychological development,” Jay notes. “It can lead to biased thinking patterns, causing the development of emotional callousness and desensitization to violence. They are also more likely to accept aggression as a normative solution to conflicts. This is supported by studies on children exposed to political content with aggressive undertones, which found that such exposure can lead to aggressive behaviours and a kind of emotional numbing to depictions of violence.”
In other words, being exposed to such messaging doesn’t simply “brainwash” the child in the specifics of our case in hand – violent resistance within the Palestinian-Israeli conflict – but informs how they react to conflict in general. After all, this isn’t just a case of believing the wrong thing about a certain situation but is about a developing brain being programmed to react in a specific way to anything even only passingly similar to that situation. Beliefs are hard enough to break, but hard-wired emotional and physical responses are something else entirely.
Jay continues, “Research indicates that children who frequently encounter non-age-appropriate content, disguised in ‘child friendly’ mediums, such as educational activities, age appropriate literature and social media on a regular basis, are at higher risk for depression, anxiety, and other emotional issues later on. This kind of exposure can undermine their sense of security and trust in their environment, leading to possible long-term psychological challenges.”
From the River to the Sea may not be “age-inappropriate” in terms of graphic content, it certainly is in how it is dedicated to a subject that simply cannot be distilled into something that can be grasped by children, on the one hand, while also presenting any sort of nuance, on the other. Kids are smarter than we think, yes, but this is tough enough a situation for grown and well-read adults to understand, let alone kids who are understandably completely oblivious to all of it.
Furthermore, Jay explains, “Manipulated media can impair social and cognitive development by presenting unrealistic standards and fostering a hostile or divisive worldview. This can affect children's ability to form healthy relationships and navigate social complexities effectively. In the long term, it can hinder their ability to engage in constructive dialogue and understand multiple perspectives.”
What to Do About It
The question becomes how to properly deal with a children’s book that is by now means as harmless as it is presented. Surely parents of kids drawn to the colourful cover, while browsing the kids section at Exclusive Books, have the right to know just how venomous this seemingly benign book truly is?
Jay certainly doesn’t seem to make any bones about it: “It is crucial to understand the importance of safe-guarding children from prejudiced and one-sided political world views to ensure their healthy emotional and psychological development. Efforts need be made to provide balanced and age-appropriate information to children so that they can learn to discern between fact and fiction and then make an informed decision.
“Child-orientated content is not meant to serve a political agenda. It is meant to be an impartial educational tool or a form of entertainment. Therefore parents, educators, and policymakers need to be vigilant and proactive in this space in order to help children navigate the complex media landscape from an educated, curious and responsible perspective.”
One may question whether indeed any sort of literature can ever be just about entertainment or if an educational tool can ever be entirely impartial, but surely we can all agree with her general point, especially in this instance?
Because, again, this really isn’t simply a question of disagreeing with a particular political view being pushed. It’s certainly not about expressing solidarity with an undeniably embattled group of people. What it is about is a book that aims to start indoctrinating children into a morally corrosive and violent ideology.
What it is about is a book that aims to start indoctrinating children into a morally corrosive and violent ideology. And surely we can all agree that such an ideology really has no place in our kids’ libraries?
