The Rainbow Fish, a Children’s Communist Manifesto

Published by PolisPandit on February 4, 2022February 4, 2022

I love books, and as a dad to a nine-month-old, I want him to love books too. So before going into why The Rainbow Fish is basically a children’s version of The Communist Manifesto, let me be clear about one thing that has become far too prevalent — no book should be banned. Some are obviously more age appropriate than others, but every story has a lesson, whether it’s right or not. The Rainbow Fish teaches the wrong lessons, but they still have some pedagogical value for children.

We inherited The Rainbow Fish on our bookshelf from my in-laws. It is easy to fall in love with the book’s aesthetics, and of course, Rainbow Fish’s sparkly scales. The book was originally published in 1992 and its visual beauty has withstood the test of time. I wish I could say the same, however, for the content and the “moral” of the story.

Once I actually read the book to my little guy, who admittedly was distracted the entire time by other books on the shelf, I was shocked that it had received critical acclaim and mainstream acceptance. It’s a popular book. But every parent should ask if it really conveys the right message for their children. If the answer is no, that doesn’t mean it has to come off the shelf. It may just need to be used to teach a lesson other than the one it promotes, which is effectively communism.

The Story

There are two ways to read the story: literally and metaphorically. There are also two ways to summarize it: valuable lessons on sharing or paying ransom for friendship. Our friends at Goodreads summarized it as follows.

Eye-catching foilstamping, glittering on every page, offers instant child-appeal, but it is the universal message at the heart of this simple story about a beautiful fish, who learns to make friends by sharing his most prized possessions, that gives the book its lasting value.

Wrong. The only lasting value in this story is to teach children what not to do.

In summary, The Rainbow Fish starts with describing the protagonist as “the most beautiful fish in the entire ocean.” He had “sparkling silver scales.” Sure, these traits made him arrogant as he ignored the other fish who wanted to play with him. He would “glide past, proud and silent, letting his scales shimmer.”

Then out of the blue a little blue fish asked for one of Rainbow Fish’s shiny scales. After all, “They are wonderful, and you [Rainbow Fish] have so many.” The Rainbow Fish basically tells this little blue guy to get lost, asking “who do you think you are?”

The little blue fish then tells all his friends and they collectively ostracize Rainbow Fish. He becomes the loneliest fish in the ocean. There’s apparently nobody to admire his beauty. Forget the fact we should be teaching children that beauty also comes from within and is not dependent on external validation.

Rainbow Fish then talks to a starfish, who sends him to a “wise octopus”, who tells Rainbow Fish to “give a glittering scale to each of the other fish.” Only then will Rainbow Fish discover “how to be happy.”

He follows the octopus’s advice, gives away his scales for free, and “at last felt at home with the other fish.” Rainbow Fish is left with one sparkly scale and is no longer considered the most beautiful fish in the ocean.

A Children’s Communist Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto famously (or infamously) described how capitalism would be overthrown and replaced by a workers’ society. They would abolish private property and raise the proletariat — or lowest economic and social classes in society — to the position of the ruling class.

In The Rainbow Fish, the little blue fish gathered his comrades to exile Rainbow Fish unless he effectively dismembered himself and gave each of them a sparkling silver scale. Some people are more perturbed by the dismemberment, but I was bothered by this simple message: Rainbow Fish, you have a unique and special quality that we don’t, so you have to give us some without anything in return or face the consequences of exile and loneliness.

This was not merely socialism where society owns or controls property for all of its members. The story illustrated an uprising and revolution of a lower class of fish. What message does it send to instruct children, as the “wise” octopus did Rainbow Fish, to simply give up any special characteristics or qualities they may have for the benefit of all? It was not like Rainbow Fish was an evil feudal lord who oppressed the other fish. He was arrogant and annoying, but that shouldn’t have required giving up something for free that made him special and unique.

This Is Not About Sharing

I can hear it now — “but children must learn to share!” Yes, they must. And as many people on this old Reddit thread pointed out, most children have their sharing dials so far in the selfish direction they require an overcorrection.

That does not mean, however, that we must pump their little brains with the idea that you give up something unique and special just because someone asked for it. Also, the little blue fish did not ask with the expectation of returning the “glittering scale” or sharing something else of value (which is usually how sharing works!). He and his friends wanted to keep the glittering scales permanently. Free of charge. No reciprocity.

“Sharing” something as valuable as a body part would usually have some expectation of return at some point. These little fish though wanted to bring Rainbow Fish down to their level for good.

Even if we do not take the story too literally, the “sharing” message is troubling. If your child had new clothes or shoes that were nicer than everyone’s, would you be fine with them giving pieces away one day? With no expectation of return or exchange? What if you discovered they were threatened with the prospect of no friends unless they handed over those new shoes?

The little blue fish and his friends took that bullying approach. They ostracized Rainbow Fish when he initially refused to give up his scales. By having him succumb to the pressure, the book rubber stamped coercion. How are threats or manipulative practices part of sharing?

So while I will not be using The Rainbow Fish as a guidebook for sharing, it will stay on the shelf, just as The Communist Manifesto does. When my son gets older, I plan to ask him whether he would simply give up his unique and special scales.

We should be celebrating uniqueness and special traits or abilities. Not forcibly leveling the playing field under threats of ostracism.

Everyone should sparkle and share. If you want someone else’s sparkly scales though, be prepared to pay for them or be willing to share something of value in return.

You can also find this post on Medium. If you are not a Medium subscriber consider becoming a Medium member. If you use this link I will receive a small commission, at no extra cost to you.