The Significance of a Mistranslation: How 1946 Changed Global Culture

The Significance of a Mistranslation: How 1946 Changed Global Culture

When thinking about mistranslation, we often imagine small missteps that are quickly corrected. However, mistranslations can have significant impacts, particularly when they occur in global culture. In this article, we explore one such case – the mistranslation that occurred during the post-World War II Tokyo Trials – and how it shaped a global understanding of human rights.

The Background

In 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) established a tribunal in Tokyo to try Japanese military and political leaders for war crimes. The trial was conducted in English, but court proceedings were translated into Japanese for the defendants, many of whom did not speak English.

Due to the complexity of legal language, the translating process was a challenge. The issue arose when the word “jinken” began frequently appearing in the translated versions of the proceedings.

While originally used in Japanese as a term for “human rights,” “jinken” had taken on a negative connotation, meaning something closer to “individual rights” with a sense of selfishness.

This mistranslation had significant ramifications, as it dramatically altered the course of the trial and the global understanding of human rights.

The Impact

During the trial, the defense lawyers were arguing that the Japanese had respected human rights, as defined in the Allied-imposed Constitution. However, as the term translated as “human rights” now had a different meaning, the defense was actually arguing that Japan had only respected individual rights and freedoms.

This ambiguity in the translation potentially affected the outcome of the trial. It could have been interpreted either way and allowed the court to look past the gross human rights violations committed by the Japanese.

This became especially pronounced during the debate over the fate of war criminals. The translations left the prosecutors uncertain on what to do with the accused war criminals and wanted to make sure they were brought to justice without committing an injustice.

The mistranslated “jinken” terminology became a pivotal moment in the trial as it drastically impacted the definition of human rights in post-WWII Japan, and ultimately on global understandings of human rights.

The Aftermath

As a result of this mistranslation, “jinken” was no longer considered to include social and economic rights, which are measurements of human rights that deal with matters such as education, decent working conditions, and an adequate standard of living. This new interpretation of “jinken” would be the foundation for the Constitution of Japan.

Moreover, Japan’s narrow interpretation of “jinken” was adopted by many in academia and the legal profession, causing an ongoing international debate.

The mistranslation provided a global example of how translations can alter meanings. It also underscored the importance of translation accuracy and the importance of being aware of context and culturally specific meanings when undertaking translation tasks.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the mistranslation of “jinken” had vast and long-lasting ripple effects in Japan and the world. The initial error and subsequent misinterpretation aftershocks revealed how translation can shape our perception of legal and human rights. Therefore, it’s essential to be aware of the cultural context of any document, especially legal ones – making literal translations often isn’t enough. Always consider nuance to ensure accurate communication, because one might never know the impact even a small mistranslation can have.