日本人氣漫畫《我的英雄學院》（大陸: "柜子学院”/日語原名《僕のヒーローアカデミア》）曾因一場命名風波引發極大的國際爭議，特別是在中國與韓國引起廣泛批評，甚至上升至「辱華」、「辱韓」層級。這場風波的核心發生於漫畫第259話中，作者堀越耕平將一名進行人體實驗的反派角色命名為「志賀丸太」，引發強烈爭議。

「丸太」在日語中本意為「圓木」，但在歷史背景下，「まるた（maruta）」是極具爭議性的詞彙。這個詞在二戰期間被用作日本帝國陸軍第731部隊對活體實驗受害者的侮辱性代稱。731部隊在侵華戰爭期間於中國東北地區進行大規模人體活體實驗，包括中國平民、朝鮮人、蘇聯戰俘等，都成為其非人道實驗的對象。「丸太」之稱，暗指這些受害者被視為非人生命體，如同木材一般可任意切割、解剖或焚毀，完全喪失人權尊嚴。

當259話發表後，不少讀者迅速聯想到這一殘酷歷史，質疑漫畫使用「志賀丸太」這一名字是在輕視歷史傷痛、甚至是對731部隊罪行的淡化或暗示式調侃。在中國社群網絡上，該事件迅速發酵，眾多網友表達強烈不滿，要求作者和出版社道歉。同樣地，韓國也出現類似聲音。由於這些國家都曾是731部隊暴行的受害國，對這樣的歷史符號格外敏感。

對於輿論風暴，作者堀越耕平與出版方集英社當時僅表示：「命名無意涉及歷史問題」，並承諾在單行本版本中更改角色名字。然而，這樣的回應未能平息憤怒，因為其聲明中並未正面承認問題的歷史背景，也未對歷史傷害作出正式道歉。後來將角色名稱更改為「殼木球大」，本希望藉由避開「丸太」一詞來結束風波，但這一新名字依然受到批評——原因在於「球大」在日語中與「九大」（即九州大學的簡稱）發音相近，而九州大學在二戰期間曾涉及美軍戰俘的活體解剖實驗事件，讓人感覺更像是再次觸碰歷史創傷。

這場風波進一步在中國線下激化，陸續傳出多起Cosplayer在活動中扮演《我的英雄學院》角色時被旁人毆打、辱罵或驅趕的事件。也有書店及周邊商品商家受到抵制，部分地區將該作品下架或暫停銷售。

這一事件不僅觸及歷史記憶與民族情感，更反映當代文化作品在全球化語境下如何面對敏感歷史議題的責任與邊界。雖然作者與出版社在聲明中否認有意涉入歷史政治問題，但在亞洲各國民眾看來，對於曾經遭遇侵略與暴行的國家來說，歷史創傷並非可以輕率帶過的符號或玩笑，而是應該被深刻反思與尊重的傷痕記憶。

The popular Japanese manga My Hero Academia (original title: 僕のヒーローアカデミア) once sparked intense international controversy, particularly in China and South Korea, over what was perceived as an insensitive reference to historical wartime atrocities. The controversy centered around Chapter 259, in which the manga’s creator, Kōhei Horikoshi, introduced a villain character named “Shiga Maruta”—a name that many believed alluded to the notorious human experimentation conducted by Japan’s Unit 731 during World War II.

In Japanese, the word “maruta” literally means “log” or “timber.” However, during the war, “maruta” was a dehumanizing term used by Unit 731 to refer to the victims of its brutal human experiments. These victims included Chinese civilians, Koreans, Soviet POWs, and others, who were treated like inanimate objects—cut open, dissected, or burned as if they were nothing more than logs. The use of this term is thus laden with historical trauma, especially in countries that suffered under Japan’s wartime aggression.

When the chapter was published, many readers quickly pointed out the disturbing implications of the character’s name, suggesting that it was either a grossly negligent or a deliberately provocative reference. The backlash was immediate and fierce, particularly in Chinese online communities, where people accused Horikoshi and the publisher, Shueisha, of insulting the memory of war victims and trivializing Japan’s war crimes. South Korean readers voiced similar outrage, given their country’s own historical experience under Japanese occupation.

In response to the growing outcry, Horikoshi and Shueisha issued a statement denying any intention to reference wartime history and promised to change the character’s name in future print editions. However, the lack of a formal apology or acknowledgment of the term’s historical significance only further fueled public dissatisfaction. The character was later renamed to “Kudō Haruki” (殻木球大), but even this new name drew criticism. Some pointed out that “Kyūdai” (球大) phonetically resembles the abbreviation for Kyushu University, which was itself involved in a wartime atrocity—conducting vivisections on American POWs during World War II—leading to accusations that the renaming was yet another veiled provocation.

The controversy did not remain confined to online platforms. In mainland China, there were multiple reported incidents in which fans cosplaying as characters from My Hero Academia were physically assaulted, verbally abused, or forcibly removed from public events. Certain bookstores and merchandise retailers faced boycotts, and in some regions, the manga was pulled from shelves or temporarily banned.

This incident touched a raw nerve and exposed deeper tensions surrounding how popular culture engages with historical memory. While the creators claimed there was no political or historical intent behind the naming, for audiences in countries that were victims of Japanese imperialism, such references are not easily dismissed. The term “maruta” is not just a word—it represents a legacy of trauma, suffering, and unresolved historical wounds. For many, this was not simply a case of poor judgment, but a reminder that cultural creators bear responsibility when navigating topics rooted in collective pain and international history.