Broken Accusation: Human Flesh Search

The Accusation:
When Fu Ping's book started to face a public backlash from the Chinese and Chinese-American community, some in the west media characterized the phenomenon as an operation of "human flesh search".

On February 4, 2013, Katie Baker wrote on The Daily Beast:

The Amazon attack bears elements of the type of Internet bullying—known by the ominous phrase “human flesh search”—that is increasingly common among Chinese bloggers. “Coordinated Netizen action against an individual is not at all unusual in China,” says Emily Parker, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and an expert on the Internet and democracy. (Parker cautions that she is unfamiliar with Ping’s case and therefore cannot speculate on who might be behind the attacks.)  

While the human flesh search phenomenon has helped expose injustice, it also has been trained on individuals to humiliate them publicly or to punish those who do not align with a strongly nationalist viewpoint. Indeed, recent hacking attacks on prominent American media outlets seem to have been aimed at publications deemed critical of China’s leaders. 

Joe Nocera was even more blunt in his New York Times piece in late June, 2013:

In other words, Fu is the classic immigrant success story. You’d think that would be a source of pride for Chinese immigrants. Instead, she has been subjected to what they call in China a “human flesh search” — an Internet vigilante campaign designed to bring shame on its target. 

The Debunking:
In the eyes of Katie Baker and Joe Nocera, the scarily named "human flesh search" must be some sort of evil reincarnation. However, people who are more familiar with China tend to have a different viewpoint. Indeed, Wikipedia's entry puts the term in a much neutral and even positive light:

Human flesh search engine (Chinese: 人肉搜索; pinyin: Rénròu Sōusuǒ) is a primarily Chinese internet phenomenon of massive researching using Internet media such as blogs and forums. It has generally been stigmatized as being for the purpose of identifying and exposing individuals to public humiliation, sometimes out of vigilantism, nationalist or patriotic sentiments, or to break the Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China.[1][2] More recent analyses, however, have shown that it is also used for a number of other reasons, including exposing government corruption, identifying hit and run drivers, and exposing scientific fraud, as well as for more "entertainment" related items such as identifying people seen in pictures. A categorization of hundreds of HFS episodes can be found in the 2010 IEEE Computer paper A Study of the Human Flesh Search Engine: Crowd-Powered Expansion of Online Knowledge.[3] 

The system is based on massive human collaboration. The name refers both to the use of knowledge contributed by human beings through social networking, as well as the fact that the searches are usually dedicated to finding the identity of a human being who has committed some sort of offense or social breach online.[4] People conducting such research are commonly referred to collectively as "Human Flesh Search Engines".

If this human flesh search engine were employed in Fu Ping's affair, it would have been a good use case of exposing fraud.


But sadly, Katie Baker and Joe Nocera were not even correct in invoking this term. As the wiki entry explained, the primary purpose of the "flesh search" is to identify anonymous individuals who had committed offense or breach. Fu Ping qualifies for the latter characteristics, but she is definitely not anonymous. There was never any need to launch a massive search for her identity.

It is of course perceivable that the "flesh search" could be employed to identify some of the key characters in Fu Ping's life, such as her cousins in Shanghai and the mysterious "Uncle W", who could shed a lot more light in validating her story. It did not happen. To this day, these people have stayed anonymous with their privacy intact, a fact that speaks volumes to the decency of those being accused by Baker, Nocera, and the like.


On the other hand, Katie Baker and Joe Nocera should be more familiar with another derogatory-sounding term: Muckraker, a fine and proud tradition of their chosen profession.

Quite substantial amount of investigative work have indeed been carried out and are continuing in verifying Fu Ping's story. So far, indisputable evidences have been recovered that she had falsified her resumes multiple times ever since the early 1990s, if not earlier. She has exaggerated her role in NCSA and the development of Mosaic browser. These are on tops of the multiple lies she had told in her book and interviews.

Fu Ping is not a simple private citizen. She is a close adviser to President Obama with influence to the national policy in technology and innovation. She was proclaimed by the USCIC as an exemplary citizen by choice while the circumstances of her getting a green card was questionable at best.

But the mainstream western media has stayed silent. They have ignored their duty and responsibility of due diligence as they happily and blindly played the role of cheerleader. That in itself may be understandable. But when a large group of volunteers who decided to take up the role of citizen journalists and rake up more and more muck under the covers of Fu Ping, they were labeled as "attackers" and "vigilantes" by the professionals like Baker and Nocera.


Now, that is injustice.

China.org.cn: Fu's Memoir Tainted by 'False Memories'

The following commentary on the Fu Ping affair was published on China.org.cn on July 14, 2013:

Fu's memoir tainted by 'false memories'
By Leng Baoqing 

Chinese communities around the world have poured criticism on the memoir "Bend, not Break" by Ping Fu, a prominent Chinese-American businesswoman, with many claiming that it contains factual inaccuracies and distortions of the truth. 

Suzhou University, Fu's Alma Mater (then called the Jiangsu Teacher's College), recently posted an announcement on its official website which detailed specific instances in which it believes Fu distorted the truth in her book. An incident which came in for particular criticism was Fu's account of female students being examined for evidence of bleeding during their monthly menstrual cycle. In 2010, Fu, serving on the board of the White House's National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, told US media outlet NPR that she witnessed the brutal execution of a teacher by Red Guards in which the teacher was pulled apart by four horses. Fu later admitted that this event might not have taken place and that her "emotional memory" might not be accurate. 

For many, however, Fu's explanations are simply excuses. There is no doubt that the memory can play tricks at times; however it seems inconceivable that anyone's memory could be so confused that they are unable to recall whether at a particular time they were in jail or graduating from university. 

Experts, however, say that such instances of false memory are quite common. Martin Conway, a professor of cognitive psychology at Leeds University, and Elizabeth Loftus, a distinguished professor at the University of California, Irvine, have both proved in their research that even memories which a person believes are true and accurate can be false. Memory is based on subjective cognition and presupposition and does not work like a tape recorder. In addition, people's memories are constantly changing, and they also tend to have an idealized picture of themselves in their memories. 

In Fu's case, this manifests in her attempts to present herself as the personification of the American Dream. Fu's difficult past and rise to prominence is proof enough of her success. To some extent, the urge to idealize or exaggerate memories is understandable. But Fu has gone too far in her memoir and this is what has upset her fellow Chinese-Americans. 

Suzhou University's criticisms and presentation of the facts on its website were fair, but Fu's book should not be taken too seriously, as its distortions are simply the author's latest attempt to adapt to mainstream U.S. society and pursue greater success. 

Surprisingly, an article in the New York Times on June 28 titled "Cultural Revolution Vigilantes" went to great lengths to defend Fu. The article, which was written by Joe Nocera, argued that "Ping Fu's book has mistakes in it. But it is hard to see how they justify the level of extreme, unrelenting vilification she has suffered." 

His point is debatable. In a pluralistic society, it is normal for public figures to face severe criticism. Fu has every right to revisit the Cultural Revolution, but she also has an obligation to tell the truth in her publications. 

For example, Fu says in her memoir that, when she was a college student, she was sent to jail for writing about female infanticide in Chinese villages (All the current evidence proves that her account was a complete fabrication). Abortion is the subject of intense public and political debate and discussion in the U.S. In 1973, Harry Blackmun, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S., authored the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade, invalidating a Texas statute making it a felony to administer an abortion in most circumstances. The case caused an immediate uproar and made Blackmun a target for opponents of abortion who sent him hate mail and death threats as a result of the case. Mr. Nocera, what do you have to say about this behavior? 

The majority of Fu's critics are not opposed to a rethinking of the Cultural Revolution and welcome reasoned debate. However, such debate should be grounded in fact, as this is the only way to achieve mutual understanding. 

As a Chinese person who has studied abroad and fully understands the difficulties faced by overseas Chinese, I hope all of them, Fu included, can achieve their life dream and be successful. However, different from Mr. Nocera, I believe that those who revisit the past and offer a different perspective on events (including the Cultural Revolution), should have a sense of responsibility. In order to fully and successfully integrate into American society as an American citizen, Ping Fu must base her writing on verified facts instead of unreliable memories. 

The author is a current affairs commentator. 

This article was first published in Chinese and translated by Li Huiru. 

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.

Adam Minter: Ping Fu's Book isn't Worth Joe Nocera

The following article was published on Bloomberg View on June 30, 2013, in reaction to Joe Nocera's blog on the Fu Ping affair:

Ping Fu’s Book Isn't Worth Joe Nocera
By Adam Minter  

The New York Times’s Joe Nocera devoted his latest column to defending Ping Fu, the Chinese-American author of the factually-challenged memoir “Bend Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds.” Nocera set a curious task for himself: Fu’s shaky relationship with the truth is so well-known that there’s an entire Amazon forum devoted to debunking the book’s alleged lies, errors, contradictions and other sins. 

The problems do appear to be many. For example, the book’s first line claims Fu was deported from China (her bio on her publisher’s website repeats as much), despite there being no record to substantiate the claim. In January, she told Forbes: “We could say that was a literary interpretation. I was asked to leave. My father helped me to find a visa to the US. I was told not to talk about it or to file for political asylum. My interpretation was I involuntary left China….If someone wants to say this is not deportation, fine. That’s my interpretation.” 

In February, she told the Guardian that in her draft she hadn’t employed the word “deported,” but her co-author and editor proposed it to “attract readers.” (The edition currently available for preview on Amazon uses the word “expelled.”) 

It’s hard to imagine Nocera devoting a column to another alleged fabulist (where is his piece defending James Frey, the disgraced author of “A Million Little Pieces”?). So why did he devote a column to Fu? 

His answer seems to be that he’s offended at how the Chinese immigrant community in the U.S. has made something of a hobby out of debunking Fu’s book: “Yes, Ping Fu’s book has mistakes in it. But it is hard to see how they justify the level of extreme, unrelenting vilification she has suffered. Her real sin, it appears, is that she stirred a pot most Chinese would prefer to leave alone.” 

In other words, Nocera sees in Fu, and her memoir, an imperfect voice for truths that the Chinese government, citizens and immigrants to the U.S. prefer not to speak of: “Three decades later, there is almost no one in China willing to delve into the Cultural Revolution. The Chinese government does not exactly encourage discussion of the subject. It remains a deeply painful subject to those who lived through it.” 

This would be a shaky defense of Fu if it were true. But it’s not. 

The Cultural Revolution -- painful as it was -- is widely discussed, written about and even the subject of films in contemporary China. There’s an ongoing conversation about the Cultural Revolution in the social media spaces that have become the country’s de facto town squares over the last five years. As of Sunday evening in Shanghai, a search for the term “Cultural Revolution” on Sina Weibo, China’s most popular microblogging service, brought up more than 23,371,000 results, with a new one appearing roughly every 15 to 20 seconds. Some of those are photos and accounts of victims of taken during and after the decade-long reign of terror; some draw comparisons between recent events in China and the horrors visited on the Chinese people during the period; and some revel in old Cultural Revolution artifacts and kitsch. 

Likewise, Fu is hardly the first Chinese immigrant to publish a Cultural Revolution memoir in the U.S. Many have preceded her, with plenty garnering praise from within and outside the Chinese immigrant community. 

One of the most striking characteristics associated with the Cultural Revolution microblogging -- and the wide-ranging contemporary dialogue about the period in China and the U.S. -- is the relentless desire to recapture, reveal and understand what really happened during that tragic decade. China’s netizens and its emigrants want the truth of the Cultural Revolution, just as Jews want the truth of the Holocaust, and Cambodians want the truth of Pol Pot’s reign of terror. 

Anyone who challenges such a quest through censorship, exaggeration or fabrication is going to be the subject of, to use Nocera’s words, “unrelenting vilification.” Deservedly so. 

(Adam Minter is the Shanghai correspondent for the World View blog and a contributor to the Ticker.)

Joe Nocera: Cultural Revolution Vigilantes

The following column on Fu Ping's affair was published on the Opinion Pages of New York Times by Joe Nocera:

Cultural Revolution Vigilantes 

By JOE NOCERA 

Even now, nearly six months later — during which time Amazon.com has been flooded with hundreds of negative reviews condemning her; a Web site was set up attacking her; and her friends and colleagues have been bombarded with e-mails denouncing her — it is a little hard to understand why Ping Fu’s memoir, “Bend, Not Break,” has aroused such fury in some quarters of the Chinese immigrant community. 

Fu, 54, came to America from China nearly 30 years ago. In 1997, she founded a company, Geomagic, that was recently sold for $55 million. In 2005, Inc. magazine named her entrepreneur of the year. On Saturday, she’ll be speaking at the American Library Association’s convention. 

In other words, Fu is the classic immigrant success story. You’d think that would be a source of pride for Chinese immigrants. Instead, she has been subjected to what they call in China a “human flesh search” — an Internet vigilante campaign designed to bring shame on its target. 

Fu’s mistake — if you can call it that — was to include in her memoir scenes of growing up during the Cultural Revolution, China’s decade-long descent into madness. It was a period when people were routinely denounced and punished (and sometimes killed) for the crime of being an intellectual or teacher; when millions were sent to the countryside for “re-education”; and when teenagers ran rampant as “Red Guards” — all with the assent of Chairman Mao. It is impossible to read about the Cultural Revolution without conjuring up “Lord of the Flies.” 

Three decades later, there is almost no one in China willing to delve into the Cultural Revolution. The Chinese government does not exactly encourage discussion of the subject. It remains a deeply painful subject to those who lived through it. 

When I spoke to Fu recently, she told me that she had originally wanted to write a business memoir. But once she started writing, she realized that to explain the woman she is today, she needed to write about the girl she had been during the Cultural Revolution. A daughter of privilege, she was taken from her family in Shanghai when she was 8 and sent to live in a dormitory far away. She was raped by Red Guards when she was 10, she writes. She worked in factories and had to raise her younger sister. Although she says that she saw atrocities, she also writes about kindnesses that were afforded her. (Disclosure: I am currently writing a book for Portfolio, which published “Bend, Not Break.”) 

In China, a blogger named Fang Zhouzi, well known for his Internet denunciation campaigns, decided to attack her. Quickly, Amazon was flooded with one-star reviews denouncing her as a liar. Her critics, most of them Chinese immigrants, picked apart her story, and, though they found a few real errors, most of their criticism was highly speculative. Yes, they seemed to be saying, bad things happened during the Cultural Revolution, but they couldn’t have happened to Ping Fu. 

“School was interrupted a bit, but there was still school,” sniffed Cindy Hao, in attempting to refute Fu’s claim that she had worked in a factory. Hao, a Chinese-born journalist who lives in Seattle, has become one of Fu’s most vociferous critics. “Ping Fu made up her whole story,” she told me. 

(Note: Hao, a freelance translator whom the Beijing bureau of The New York Times uses on occasion, helped report an article by Didi Kirsten Tatlow. She says that she became a critic only after that article was published. She is no longer permitted to do reporting for the bureau.) 

You can’t spend time talking to Hao and other critics without thinking that the real issue here is not whether Fu’s book has errors, but rather who gets to tell the story of the Cultural Revolution — or even whether it should be told at all. Roderick MacFarquhar, an expert on the Cultural Revolution who teaches at Harvard, told me that for anyone who lived through it, the memories are ones they would prefer not to conjure up. “If you were a teenager in China during the Cultural Revolution, you were likely either being beaten up or were doing the beating. Either way, it is humiliating to think about.” Yes, Ping Fu’s book has mistakes in it. But it is hard to see how they justify the level of extreme, unrelenting vilification she has suffered. Her real sin, it appears, is that she stirred a pot most Chinese would prefer to leave alone. 

In recent months, Hao tried to get Ping Fu disinvited from speaking at the American Library Association convention. In one letter, she described Fu as lacking “honesty, integrity and trustworthiness.” 

From where I’m sitting, it sounds a lot like the denunciations that were so routine, and so awful, during the Cultural Revolution.