Gorillion others
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2023
Had ChatGPT write this.Glory Through Suffering: How My Hero Academia Accidentally Echoes Imperial Japanese Propaganda
My Hero Academia (MHA), created by Kohei Horikoshi, began as a heartfelt exploration of what it means to be a hero in a flawed society. With its blend of comic book aesthetics and shonen structure, it positioned itself as a modern myth of personal sacrifice and moral conviction. However, as the series progressed—especially during its later arcs—MHA’s central message began to warp into something darker, more extreme, and unsettlingly familiar. In its uncritical glorification of self-destruction, idealization of martyrdom, and emotional absolutism, My Hero Academia begins to unintentionally echo the emotional machinery of imperial Japanese propaganda. It becomes, in effect, a story where heroism is no longer about protecting others—it’s about erasing the self for a corrupted system.
---
Heroism as Self-Erasure
From the start, Izuku Midoriya (Deku) is presented as the ultimate embodiment of selflessness. He destroys his body repeatedly for the sake of others, pushes away his support system to protect them, and insists on saving even the most destructive villains—most notably Shigaraki, a mass murderer responsible for thousands of deaths. What begins as admirable persistence curdles into something pathological. Deku refuses to rest, refuses to heal, and refuses to acknowledge limits—not because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s what “a true hero” should do.
This transformation aligns disturbingly well with the bushidō-infused idealism seen in Japanese imperial propaganda during World War II. Kamikaze pilots, for instance, were celebrated for embracing self-destruction in the name of a higher ideal—dying not to save others, but to uphold a sacred cause. Their suffering was portrayed as noble, necessary, and beautiful. Deku’s arc parallels this dynamic. He is not rewarded for introspection or reform—he is rewarded for pushing himself to the brink of death. His body is battered, his mental state deteriorates, and yet the story praises him for smiling through the pain. This is not resilience. It’s sublimated martyrdom.
---
Glorification of Sacrifice Without Systemic Change
One of MHA’s biggest thematic contradictions is that it constantly points out the flaws in the hero society—its ranking obsession, its discrimination against certain quirks, its failure to protect the vulnerable—yet never actually advocates for systemic change. Instead, the burden of salvation falls entirely on individual heroes, especially Deku. He must suffer more. He must push harder. He must redeem the irredeemable.
In this structure, My Hero Academia eerily resembles the rhetoric of militarized nationalism: the system is sacred, the flaws are human, and redemption comes only through personal sacrifice. There is no meaningful effort to rebuild society or challenge the institutions that failed. The narrative never seriously interrogates whether “heroism” as defined by the system is even worth saving. It simply insists that it is—and expects its characters to die proving it.
---
Stain: The Wasted Voice of Deconstruction
Nowhere is this narrative failure more apparent than in the handling of Stain, one of the series’ most compelling characters. Stain challenged the legitimacy of the hero system, exposing its vanity, corruption, and detachment from real moral responsibility. For a moment, it seemed like MHA might truly dive into deconstructive waters, asking what a hero should be.
But Horikoshi glazed over it.
Stain’s ideology is discarded. His relevance fizzles. Instead of serving as a catalyst for institutional critique, he becomes just another quirk-flavored flavor in the larger power struggle. His radicalism is neutered, folded into the same system he opposed. MHA briefly flirts with rebellion, then reverts to obedience.
---
Emotional Absolutism and Manipulative Redemption
Another hallmark of propaganda storytelling is emotional absolutism—the idea that suffering equals moral superiority, and that redemption is deserved simply because someone has a tragic backstory. This is how My Hero Academia handles Shigaraki. The audience is shown a disturbing origin: child abuse, societal neglect, an accidental mass killing. All undeniably tragic. But these flashbacks are then wielded to excuse the reality: Shigaraki is a mass murderer who continues to cause unimaginable suffering. Still, the story demands that Deku (and the audience) believe he’s worth saving—because trauma has become a narrative shield against consequences.
This tactic mirrors emotional manipulation found in wartime narratives: dehumanize the victims, humanize the perpetrator, and frame empathy as a duty of the righteous. In MHA, that duty falls to Deku, who insists that Shigaraki is not beyond saving, even while the body count rises. Instead of a thoughtful discussion about justice, accountability, or moral boundaries, we get a moral flattening where all pain is equal, and all redemption must be attempted. The story replaces ethics with sentimentality—and sacrifices realism for emotional spectacle.
---
Conclusion: A Broken System, Beautifully Defended
My Hero Academia began with promise—a smart, empathetic take on heroism through the lens of personal growth and institutional pressure. But as the series escalated, its narrative logic became twisted by its own mythology. In seeking to make heroism noble, it made suffering sacred. In trying to critique the system, it glorified sacrifice in service of that same system. And in demanding emotional investment, it manipulated that investment with flashbacks and trauma bait.
What remains is a story that, however unintentionally, echoes the aesthetic and emotional architecture of imperial propaganda: purity through pain, glory through obedience, and moral absolution through suffering. It’s not a fascist story, but it is a story that has lost the plot—literally and thematically.
And perhaps that’s the real tragedy of My Hero Academia:
> It taught its audience to chase an ideal of heroism so blindly, they never stopped to ask who defined it—and who benefits when no one questions it.
