A few weeks a go, various Japanese news media started to report on an incident caused by BBC TV program QI. In this quiz show on history, the presenter opened the quiz by asking “What happened to this unluckiest man in the world?”
This unluckiest person BBC featured on this show was a survivor from an atomic bomb, who experienced the horror of atomic bomb not only in Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945 but also in Nagasaki on 9th Aug 1945.
Mr. Yamaguchi was on a business trip to Hiroshima from Nagasaki and just after 6th of August, he returned to his home town where another bomb was dropped.
It is reported that Japanese citizen in England contacted Japanese embassy in UK to report this program as unappropriate, which then lead to Japanese government to protest Britain. The producer of the program later apologised.
Mr. Yamaguchi’s experience has been recorded in a number of interviews, news archives and documentaries in the past in Japan. Many Japanese news media reported this BBC incident as highly inappropriate for victims of nuclear weapon and broadcasted the films of the man explaining the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the past.
The man has past away few years a go, so his daughter was interviewed. She expressed her disgrace for being made fun for being a victim of such atrocity. She also continued to say that country such as United Kingdom posses nuclear weapon and them making fun of nuclear bomb is not funny at all.
This whole story came to my attention not only because I live in UK and I am a Japanese, but also I felt it was quite typical misunderstanding and gap in views, culture and position.
On one level, I am sure that the producer of this program did not have a good understanding of the actual impact of the A-bomb. This is partly because in UK or USA, many of the horrific footage from the bomb is not widely circulated. Compare to what is shown in Japan, American media like History channel does not as much documents of men, women, child, babies in Hiroshima/Nagasaki with heavy burns of half of their face falling off. Of course winnerd of war still need to maintain their position on war and this is politically motivated.
In Japan, these horrific images aree used at schools to educate how bad wars are, and how terrible it was for Japan to undertake in the last one. (In my opinion, this is also politically motivated as American had power over what should be taught at school after the war) And as Japan is the only victim of A-bomb in the world, they have the non-nuclear principle of “Not making”, “Not having” and “Not allowing to bring” nuclear weapons.
It is a extremely touchy subject for the Japanese and my feelings also hurt when Mr. Yamaguchi talks about river full of dead burnt people which he saw that day. It tells horror of the weapon and what he had to go through.
At the same time, I feel how Japanese media’s report on this BBC program was also misleading. They reported QI as a “comedy program” (used the word ‘Variety program’ which is widely used as comedy, shows etc in Japan) They also reported as though cast of the program laughed at the man, and dropping of A-bombs. I think British have sense of humour where often laugh at tragic occasions, not to make fun of the people or the situation, but laugh to make it more bearable perhaps.
To me, the program is not making the fun of the victim, in fact these cast are professionals and they were quite skillful in not making a direct joke. One of the cast’s comments on “It is amazing that the training was running the next day” is really a comment making a fun of inefficiency of British trains, and it was the ‘material’ they are laughing at, not to the a-bomb victims.
For me, stories like this makes me think about how tricky it can be when it comes to inter-cultural and historical positions, views and contexts. As someone who understand British humour and grew up watching documentary of atrocities of A-bombs, I think clear and well articulated communication is vital in this kind of case.
To a degree, British humour has its legetimacy in culture and so as the voices of the victims of A-bombs. And both legitimacy can only be consolidated to a fair ground when they can both communicate. Personaly I am interested in this issue because I feel well articulated communication can give us place to understand each other.