Broken Fact: Public Reporting on Population Control and Infanticide in China in the 1980s

The Original Story:
On Page 255 of Bend, Not Break, Fu Ping made further claims on the impact of her infanticide research:

My findings wound up as the editor's comment in the Shanghai newspaper, which called for an end to the madness. The editorial comment was then picked up by China's national paper, the People's Daily in Beijing. It was the first time a Chinese official newspaper acknowledged that peasants were killing baby girls. The news spread to the international press, who used this acknowledgement as evidence of China's violations of human rights, prompting cries from the UN for economic sanctions. I unwittingly had set off a chain of events that, like toppling dominoes, resulted in a worldwide shaming of my country and its new leadership.

The Changed Story:
After no related editorials were found within the time frame of her research, Fu Ping clarified as:

Why does nobody else in China know that the UN placed sanctions on China in 1981? And how do you know that? 
A: I heard about the sanctions in China while awaiting my passport. I was told that the UN was unhappy about this issue. A quick web search shows that the American-based journalist Steven W. Mosher wrote about female infanticide in China in 1981. His book, called Broken Earth, was published in 1983 -- the same year I was waiting for my passport. Knowing this, it makes sense that I was asked to leave quietly. Anything else would have drawn more attention to the issue. According to the Los Angeles Times, Mosher successfully lobbied George W. Bush to cut UN funding for China. His story and the timeline are consistent with my experience. 

Didi Kirsten Tatlow of the International Herald Tribune concurred on the clarification:

By 1983, state news media were reporting on female infanticide. “At present, the phenomena of butchering, drowning and leaving to die female infants and maltreating women who have given birth to female infants have been very serious. It has become a grave social problem,” People’s Daily reported on March 3 of that year, according to a New York Times article dated April 11. 

The Debunking:
Once again, timeline should play a significant role here. Fu Ping's research and thesis, if actually existed, happened in early 1982. She was then supposedly arrested in the fall of 1982 and told to leave the country. Therefore, newspaper reporting in 1983 or later had absolute no relevance of her misfortune.

However, Fu Ping's research in 1982, if indeed publicized, was not the first public report of the issue either. According to Fang Zhouzi's research, as early as 1981, right after the one-child policy started, a couple of Chinese newspaper and magazine had already reported the criminal practice of killing baby girls influenced by the policy. The reports were even picked up by the American activist magazine Executive Intelligence Reviews in its Volume 8 issue of that year.

Of course, Fu Ping can plead innocence of now knowing these early reports that she honestly thought those phantom editorials were the first. But the more important thing here is, given the early open and public report, why would Fu Ping get into the kind of political trouble she said she endured if her work wasn't ground-breaking at all?

UN might not be happy with China. But anyone with political common sense would know that UN could never impose economic sanction to China, a member with veto power. In 1983, neither George W. Bush or George H. W. Bush was in power. There was indeed a policy change in the US to cut its funding for UN. That would be, at best, US sanction against UN, not UN against China.

Even if we accepted all of Fu Ping's clarification, the socalled international outcry on China's human rights would be a contribution made by the American Steven Mosher. What did that have to do with her own story?

Fang Zhouzi: Fu Ping's "Clarification" is Full of Lies

On February 2, right after Fu Ping published her "clarification" blog on Huffington Post, Fang Zhouzi published a response in his own blog, calling the clarification as full of lies. This blog has been translated into English by an associate professor of University of Florida. Fang Zhouzi also posted the translated version on Amazon himself.

The original Chinese version follows the English one below.

Ping Fu posted a clarification article on her blog today in response to my criticism. Her article can be found here. 

Ping Fu claimed that although my comments are correct, they are made based on the inaccurate Forbes report, not based on her new book. The Forbes report has since been corrected. 

In fact, if you read my article, you will know that the Forbes report triggered my criticism, but I made my comments not just based on this report, but also based on a series of reporting, radio and TV shows, and video interviews on American news media since 2005. I also read the two chapters of her book that are available on Google Book. All of them provide a consistent picture. If the Forbes report made mistakes, then the reports by other US media and what Fu said by herself on the interviews will also be wrong. It is useless to single out Forbes (as an scapegoat). 

In her clarification, Ping Fu said, "I did not say or write that I was in a labor camp; I stated that I lived for 10 years in a university dormitory on the NUAA campus. Chinese children don't get put in labor camps. I also did not say I was a factory worker. I said Mao wanted us to study and learn from farmers, soldiers and workers." 

Just ten days ago, in a video interview with Google, [7:15] Ping Fu said that she lived in a ghetto for 10 years of Culture Revolution. 

In a different interview with NPR, [15:50] she said that she was sent to a correctional farm when she was 10 and stayed there for about 10 years. She vividly described a story of how she brought food from the correctional farm back to feed her sister. 

How could she blame the US reporters for mistaking what she actually meant? 

In her earlier interviews with US news media, she always claimed that she had been forced to work in a factory since nine years old, without education (schooling) for the entire Culture Revolution. Now her factory experience becomes "Mao wanted us to study and learn from farmers, soldiers and workers." That's what every Chinese student experienced in that era. Not forced labor, it is just a part of the normal school curriculum at the time. How come it becomes her personal tragedy? In her logic, should every Chinese student from Culture Revolution claim that they worked for 10 years in factory without being educated? 

But Ping Fu now also said that since the schools reopened in 1972, she studied tirelessly. In fact, schools reopened in 1968 during Culture Revolution. Let's just accept that Nanjing schools were special and they somehow reopened in 1972. But why would all previous US reports say that she was not schooled for 10 years? Here are a few examples: 

Inc. Magazine's report
WeNews report
NPR even said that she never set foot in a classroom for those 10 years.
Illinois Alumni said she was locked up for 10 years and released when she was 18.  

Why did all these US media make false reports? Why would they all believe she was different from other Chinese students of that time, not receiving any normal education while others did? 

Regarding the extraordinary story about her witness of a teacher being torn into pieces by four horses, Ping Fu clarified, "To this day, in my mind, I think I saw it. That is my emotional memory of it. After reading Fang's post, I think in this particular case that his analysis is more rational and accurate than my memory. Those first weeks after having been separated from both my birth parents and my adoptive parents were so traumatic, and I was only eight years old. There is a famous phrase in China for this killing; I had many nightmares about it" 

She acknowledged that she might have treated nightmare as reality. The famous Chinese phrase was killing by five horses, not by four. Killing by four horses was a western way of execution in ancient history. If she had a nightmare when she was a Chinese kid, she would have dreamed about five horses, not four. A possibility is that she fabricated this story to meet western mindset. 

Ping Fu acknowledged that her undergrad thesis on female infanticide was never published, nor was it reported by People's Daily (#1 newspaper in China). But she said she read an editorial on gender equality on People's Daily in 1982. 

However, she also claimed in earlier US interviews that her thesis made big public impact, with Wen Hui Bao and People's Daily reporting her findings, though her name was not referenced. Listen to what she said on NPR [18:00] 

If her thesis was never published, how would newspapers know her findings? All right, granted that those newspapers had secret channels to learn her findings. How come the People's Daily report was about gender equality? It was commonplace for Chinese newspapers to promote gender equality in those years. What makes her to connect that editorial with her thesis on female infanticide? 

Ping Fu claimed that she heard UN sanctioned China (due to her findings) while awaiting her passport. This is a significant but ridiculous event (UN sanction needs the blessing from China and other four permanent council members). She heard it from someone, and then made this claim (as a fact) everywhere in US media!? 

In response to questions about UN sanction, Ping Fu mentioned a Stanford student, Steven W. Mosher, who wrote about Chinese female infanticide in 1981 and published his book in 1984; "the same year I was waiting for my passport," Fu claimed. Then she continued with, "According to the Los Angeles Times, Mosher successfully lobbied George W. Bush to cut UN funding for China. His story and the timeline are consistent with my experience." 

Ping Fu arrived at US in January 1984. In order to draw connection with Mosher, she changed gear by stating that she was waiting for her passport in that year. As for Bush's cut of UN funding, that's Bush sanctioning UN (due to China's birth policy), not UN sanctioning China. Moreover, Bush became the president in 2001. That's 17 years after Fu moved to US. What will all these have anything to do with her story of being forced to leave China? 

Ping Fu claimed in her clarification that the government told her to leave, not giving a specific destination. (She said she waited her passport for a year.) She got a student visa, which was secured through a family friend at the University of New Mexico. 

However, in earlier interviews, she had repeatedly claimed that the government told her to leave China in two weeks. She even repeated this statement to the Forbes reporter the day before yesterday. Listen to what she said 10 days ago in the Google interview: Her thesis caught national and international attention, UN sanctioned China, she was jailed for three days, Deng Xiaoping (China's paramount leader after Mao) intervened, she was released and given a passport two weeks later, and told to leave China. See Authors at Google record, [10:30] 

She got her passport in two weeks after her three-day arrest! Yes, she said that, facing the camera, just 10 days ago. Now she changed her words, stating that it was very difficult to get the passport and she got hers more than one year after her release. Is she lying? 

Fu said in interviews that she knew only three English words when arriving at US although the specific words varied in different interviews. She now says, "English language classes were offered, but not required. I did not study English ever. I had `level zero' English, just like most Americans know a few words of Spanish or French. I tried to learn more English when I knew I was going to the U.S., but when I arrived, I only remembered a few." 

A few, not three anymore? But what she says now is still a lie. First, since 1978, English is a required course in college. Second, her classmate (Zhi Lao Zhai, blog name, acknowledged by Fu as her classmate) stated in his blog that, "the 1978 students in the Chinese literature department were placed in two English classes. Fu's English is good among us. She was in the fast-track class."Third, Fu acknowledged that she passed the entrance exams to become a graduate student in Nanjing University. Graduate entrance exams had English. 

In her clarification, she claimed that, "One of my classmates also responded to Fang's article on his blog. What he says is consistent with what I wrote in the book, so he must be a classmate."
That's another lie. She can fool American readers who do not know Chinese (the classmate's bog is in Chinese). In fact, her classmate's blog was entirely dedicated to reveal her lies. The blog is here.

Fu claimed that she didn't apply for political asylum. (It was a common routine to apply for green card through political asylum with claims of mistreatment by Chinese government on its one-child policy in late 80s. ) 

However, in February last year, when Singtao Daily reported on the first immigrant entrepreneur forum sponsored by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, it clearly stated that Fu received her green card through political asylum: "The four immigrant entrepreneurs on the speakers' stage all have their stories. Geomagic's Ping Fu was born in the mainland of China, grew up during Culture Revolution, received residence status through political asylum after coming to US in 1983, and then created her own business." 

If Fu didn't get her green card through political asylum, how did she get it in 1987 when she was an undergrad international student? Other means for green card could not been applied to her. 

Ping Fu said, "Criticism is not a form of defamation; it is a form of speaking or seeking truth. I welcome constructive criticism." 

But she has been lying, for many years. Now, as she finds that she can no longer hold up the old lies, she creates new ones to cover the old. How can that be constructive? Revealing a liar's lies, exposing a cheater's cheats, that is not defaming. That is merely pointing out the truth.

　傅苹今天在其博客上针对我的批评，贴了一篇澄清声明：
　　http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ping-fu/clarifying-the-facts-in-bend-not-break_b_2603405.html
　　傅苹声称，虽然我的批评是正确的，但是是根据福布斯不准确的报道，而不是根据她新出的书，福布斯的报道后来更正了（意思是我的批评成了无的放矢）。
　　事实上，看过我对她的批评文章的就知道，虽然福布斯的报道引发了我的批评，但是我的批评并非仅仅针对福布斯的报道，而是针对自2005年以来美国媒体对傅苹的各种报道、傅苹的电台和视频访谈。我也看了傅苹新书放在google book上供试读的前面两章。它们的内容都相当的一致。如果说福布斯的报道有错的话，那么此前美国媒体的其他报道、傅苹接受电台和视频访谈亲口说的话，也全都错了。怪罪到福布斯上面是无济于事的。
　　傅苹声称，“我没有说过或写过我是在劳改营；我说的是我在南航校园的一个大学宿舍里生活了10年。中国儿童不被送去劳改营。我也没有说我是一个工厂工人。我说毛要我们向农民、战士和工人学习。”（我的翻译）
　　就在10天前，傅苹接受谷歌的视频访谈时，还说整个文革十年她都生活在隔离区（ghetto）（http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4vRtvswO8s 大约7分15秒开始）。NPR采访她时，说她十岁时被送到劳改农场（correctional farm）达10年之久，她有声有色地讲述如何从劳改农场带东西回来喂她妹妹的故事（ http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_988_Ping_Fu.mp3 15:50开始）。她好意思怪美国记者理解错了她的意思？
　　在此前她接受美国英文媒体的所有采访中，她从来说的是从9岁起她被迫在工厂工作，整个文革期间没有受过教育，何时说过她在工厂的工作指的是“毛要我们向农民、战士和工人学习”？（只在中文媒体上这么说过）那不就是当时每个中国学生都经历过的学工、学农、学军吗？那不就是正常教育的一部分吗？怎么就成了她个人的苦难了？是不是所有经历过文革的中国学生都可以向她学习，声称自己在十年间都在工厂工作，没有受过学校教育？
　　傅苹声称，自1972年开始学校复课，她从此不知疲倦地学习。
　　文革期间的学校复课是从1968年就开始的。我们姑且相信南京学校比较特殊，迟至1972年才复课吧。但是此前美国媒体的报道全说她整整10年没有上过学，例如《公司》的报道（http://www.inc.com/magazine/20051201/ping-fu.html ），WeNews的报道（http://womensenews.org/story/women-in-science/100505/geomagics-ping-fu-rises-in-tech-firmament?page=0,1#.UQzHxqVkw1I ），NPR甚至说她十年间没进过教室(http://www.npr.org/2006/03/18/5279787/ping-fu-recreating-the-world-in-all-its-dimensions )。《伊利诺校友杂志》则说她被关了10年，18岁时才被释放。（http://www.uiaa.org/illinois/news/illinoisalumni/0707_b.html ）
　　为什么所有这些采访过她的美国媒体全都搞错了？都认为她和其他中国学生不一样，没受过任何正常教育？
　　傅苹声称，到现在她还记得她目睹了教师被红卫兵四马分尸。但是在看了我的分析后，她承认我的分析比她的记忆靠谱。她说中国对这种虐杀有一种说法，而她为此做了很多噩梦。
　　这意思是她承认把噩梦当成了现实。中国的说法是“五马分尸”，而不是四马分尸。四马分尸是西方的酷刑。她小时候要做噩梦也应该梦的是五马分尸，而不是四马分尸。更可能的是，她根据西方人的口味来编造四马分尸的故事。
　　傅苹承认她关于一胎化政策导致溺婴的论文从未发表过，也从未被《人民日报》报道过。但是她说她记得在1982年读过《人民日报》一篇呼吁男女平等的社论。
　　此前她在接受美国媒体采访时不是一直在说她的论文一度引起了轰动，《文汇报》《人民日报》都不点名地报道了其研究结果了吗？甚至连邓小平都对她的论文感兴趣吗？（听她亲口在NPR说：http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_988_Ping_Fu.mp3 18:00）既然她的论文从未发表过，报纸怎么知道她的研究成果？就算报纸有秘密通道知道其研究，所谓的报道居然就是一篇呼吁男女平等的社论？当时中国报纸呼吁男女平等那是一点都不奇怪的，她有什么理由相信那和她的论文有关？在其声明中她甚至不敢明确地说《人民日报》的社论与她的论文有关。
　　傅苹声称，所谓联合国因为其论文而制裁中国的说法是她在等护照时听人说的。
　　原来这么重大而离奇的事件，最多只是她的道听途说，然后就在美国媒体上到处宣讲？
　　傅苹提到美国斯坦福大学学生Steven W. Mosher在1981年发表中国溺婴的研究，在1984年出版了有关著作，并称那一年她正在等护照。她并提到《洛杉矶时报》曾报道说Mosher成功游说小布什政府不向联合国提供用于中国的资金。她认为这与她在国内的经历一致。
　　1984年1月傅苹已经到美国了，为了跟Mosher扯上关系，怎么又改口说成那一年她还在等护照？小布什政府因为反对中国的人口政策而不向联合国人口基金会提供资金，那是小布什政府制裁联合国，和联合国制裁中国有什么关系？而且小布什是2001年上台的，那时候傅苹已在美国生活17年了，和她所谓被迫离开中国，又怎么能扯上关系？
　　Mosher在1980年左右曾在中国做人口学研究，他关于中国强迫人工流产的文章1981年在台湾发表后，惹怒了中国政府，斯坦福大学于1983年以其违背研究伦理、从事非法活动为由将他开除。他起诉斯坦福大学。这个案件在1984年——也就是傅苹到美国那一年——非常有名，但现在已很少有人知道了。傅苹突然提起她刚到美国时很著名而现在已鲜为人知的这个案子，让我不得不怀疑她当年正是根据Mosher的案子来捏造她的论文故事，以此申请政治避难的。
　　傅苹声称，因为其论文政府要求她离开中国，但政府没有给特定期限。她通过在新墨西哥大学的一个家庭朋友获得了学生签证。
　　在此前她接受采访时，全都说是她被中国政府要求在两周内离开中国。直到前天她还在对福布斯记者这么说。最离谱的是她10天前接受谷歌的采访，这是她亲口说的：她的论文引起了国际轰动，联合国对中国进行制裁，她被投入监狱关了三天，因为邓小平问写论文的那个人现在怎么样了，她才被放出来，两周后警方交给她护照要她离开中国。（http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4vRtvswO8s 从10：30开始）她的案子连邓小平都被惊动了，她两周就得到护照了——没错，这是她十天前对着镜头亲口说的。仅仅过了十天，她就改口说因为办护照极其困难，她被释放后等了一年多才拿到护照。这不是撒谎、骗人，是什么？
　　傅苹声称，在她上大学时英语是选修课，不是必修课，她从未学过英语，她的英语水平是零，在抵达美国时只记得几个英语单词。
　　不再说只懂三个英语单词了？但是这仍是谎言。第一、从恢复高考开始，英语就是大学的必修课，她不可能没上过英语课。第二、她的大学同班同学滋兰斋主人（傅苹承认是她的大学同班同学）在批评傅苹的文章中说：“当年我们中文系1978级两个班，这个人的英语水平算是高的，在快班。”第三、傅苹承认自己考上了南京大学比较文学硕士专业的研究生，只是因故没有去上。研究生入学考试必考英语。
　　顺便说一下，傅苹声称其大学同班同学滋兰斋主人的文章是对我的回应，和她的说法一致，这也是谎言，是欺骗不懂中文的美国读者。事实上，滋兰斋主人的文章是在揭露她的谎言的：http://zilanzai.i.sohu.com/blog/view/253678027.htm
    傅苹声称，在那张红卫兵合影照片中，如果放大的画可以看出她没有戴红卫兵袖章，那是他们在她读书的学校的红卫兵旗帜前照的。
    实际上，在那张照片中，每个人的左手臂都戴着红卫兵袖章，包括傅苹。那张照片并非是在学校照的，而是在南京灵谷寺照的，是他们打着“红卫兵团”旗帜去那里游玩时的合影。
　　傅苹声称，她没有申请政治避难。
　　但是《星岛日报》去年2月份关于她参加美国国土安全部移民局举办的首届移民企业家峰会，并获得美国移民局授予“杰出归化美国人”称号的报道明确说她是通过政治避难获得绿卡的：“坐在主讲台上的四位移民企业家都有各自的故事，杰魔公司华裔董事长傅苹出生在中国大陆，成长于文革时期，1983年来美国后申请了难民庇护得到身分，之后创立了自己的公司。”（http://oversea.stnn.cc/NY/201202/t20120224_1707578.html ）如果傅苹不是通过政治避难获得美国绿卡，她又是通过什么途径在1987年之前获得绿卡的？其他途径都更不适合她。
　　傅苹声称批评不是诽谤，而是讲述或寻找真相的方式，她欢迎建设性的批评。
　　她一直在说假话，讲了很多年，现在发现谎言圆不了了，就用新的谎言掩盖，这如何建设得起来？揭露一个说谎的人说谎，揭露一个骗人的人骗人，那不叫诽谤，那只是指出事实真相。

Fu Ping: Clarifying the Facts in Bend, Not Break

Amid a major "backlash" to her life story, Fu Ping published a blog on Huffington Post on February 1, 2013, in an attempt to clarify her facts. While answering some of the questions raised, she avoided other more significant ones. She also insisted on what was in her book Bend, Not Break, even though she had frequently told different versions of the same "facts" in her various online interviews, see "In Fu Ping's Own Words" here. She did clarify, however, that the infamous "four-horse story" is likely only her "emotional memory."

An article about my book, Bend, Not Break, which appeared in Forbes and was translated into Chinese for ForbesChina.com (this link is to a Google English translation), contained several inaccuracies in wording. The posts have since been corrected. Meanwhile, Chinese blogger Fang Zhouzi posted a story in which he questioned my credibility, and John Kennedy reacted to that blog in the South China Morning Post. Though factually correct based on the original version of the Forbes article, both Fang and Kennedy made comments based on inaccurate information, rather than on material actually printed in the book. I would like to respond to their comments, as well as the comments of other critics who have since posted to various websites attacking the authenticity of my story. 

Why did you say you were in a labor camp during the Cultural Revolution? 

I did not say or write that I was in a labor camp; I stated that I lived for 10 years in a university dormitory on the NUAA campus. Chinese children don't get put in labor camps. I also did not say I was a factory worker. I said Mao wanted us to study and learn from farmers, soldiers and workers. 

If you were deprived of an education for those 10 years of the Cultural Revolution, and less than 5 percent of applicants were accepted when universities reopened, how did you get in? Were you a prodigy? 

After 1972, school resumed (p. 128). We had few formal classes at my school at the edge of Nanjing in an industrial area. I studied nonstop (pp. 229-231) and was known by my family as "the girl who never turns off her lights." (p. 231) 

Suzhou University did not reopen until 1982. How could you go there in 1977? 

A: This is a typo in the book (p. 232). I took the college entrance exams in 1977 and 1978, and was admitted in 1978. When I entered, I believe it was called Jiangsu Teachers College or Jiangsu Teachers University. Its name changed to Suzhou University before I left; it was the same university in the same location. 

In a 2010 NPR interview, you say you saw Red Guards execute one teacher by tying each limb to a separate horse and dismembering her by having each horse run simultaneously in a separate outward direction. During the Cultural Revolution, dismemberment using four horses was unheard of and would have been quite difficult. This was a legend from several hundred years ago. 

To this day, in my mind, I think I saw it. That is my emotional memory of it. After reading Fang's post, I think in this particular case that his analysis is more rational and accurate than my memory. Those first weeks after having been separated from both my birth parents and my adoptive parents were so traumatic, and I was only eight years old. There is a famous phrase in China for this killing; I had many nightmares about it. 

You claim you were brutally gang-raped. Gang rape doesn't happen in China. 

A: Rape is a very private matter and this definitely happened. I know this was not a hallucination. I have scars. My body was broken. 

In the Forbes piece, you say you wrote your undergrad thesis at Suzhou University on the practice of female infanticide in rural China. Your research received nationwide press coverage at the time, and you were sentenced to exile as a result.NOTE: The Forbes editorial mistake noting that I "published my thesis" on female infanticide in rural China has been corrected. 

I said I was asked to leave quietly. I did not say my research was published; it was never published. I was told that the reason I was arrested was because of my research (book p. 257). 

In the 2005 Inc. Magazine article, you explained that your findings on female infanticide were later covered by Shanghai's Wen Hui Bao newspaper and later then by People's Daily, resulting in condemnation from around the world, sanctions imposed by the UN, and you getting tossed into prison. People's Daily archives for the period when your research would've been published have nothing regarding female infanticide in rural China. 

I remember reading an editorial in a newspaper in 1982 that called for gender equality. It was not a news article and not written by me, and I didn't know it had anything to do with my research (pp. 253-255). When writing the book, I did not name the paper, since I wasn't certain. However, I think that is where I read the editorial because it was the most popular and official newspaper. People who have not read my book made assumptions that I submitted the research to the newspaper, or I published the thesis, but that was not how I described it in the book. 

Why does nobody else in China know that the UN placed sanctions on China in 1981? And how do you know that? 

A: I heard about the sanctions in China while awaiting my passport. I was told that the UN was unhappy about this issue. A quick web search shows that the American-based journalist Steven W. Mosher wrote about female infanticide in China in 1981. His book, called Broken Earth, was published in 1983 -- the same year I was waiting for my passport. Knowing this, it makes sense that I was asked to leave quietly. Anything else would have drawn more attention to the issue. According to the Los Angeles Times, Mosher successfully lobbied George W. Bush to cut UN funding for China. His story and the timeline are consistent with my experience. 

You say you were walking on campus when a black bag was suddenly thrown over your head and you were stuffed into a car before being arrested? 

Yes, this is how it happened. I never returned to classes and I did not graduate. My classmates were told that I had a mental breakdown. After my release, I did what I was told and laid low at home (book, p. 255, pp. 258-259). I originally had been planning to go to graduate school to study comparative literature in Nanjing, but that could not happen due to the circumstances. 

You said you were held three days and narrowly avoided being sentenced to reform through labor when authorities decided instead to send you into exile. 

A: I was asked to leave quietly and never come back again (book p. 258). 

Why would you, an unknown, be deported/expelled to study in the U.S., a treatment reserved for very prominent dissidents? 

As I describe in the book (pp. 257-261), I was told that I had to leave China, but not given a specific destination. I got a student visa, which was secured through a family friend at the University of New Mexico. On pages 258-259, I detail my application process to live abroad and how I ended up in America. 

Chinese international students had many ways of being able to stay in the United States. One of those was to fabricate bizarre tales of having faced persecution in China and apply for political asylum. It didn't matter how fantastic you made your experiences, Americans would still believe them to be true. 

I didn't apply for political asylum; I was explicitly told not to attract attention. 

According to Inc., you arrived at Suzhou University wanting to study engineering or business, but the Party assigned you to study English. 

When the acceptance letter came in the fall of 1978 (this is a typo in the book, where it reads 1977 on p 232), it said that I had been assigned to study literature at Suzhou University. Inc.magazine made an editorial error on my major in China; I majored in Chinese literature, not in English literature. (p. 99) 

Forbes said you arrived in the United States knowing only three words of English, yet there are different sets of those first three words: Inc.: Please, thank you, help; Bend, Not Break: Thank you, hello, help; NPR: Thank you, help, excuse me. 

In college, English language classes were offered, but not required. I had "level zero" English, just like most Americans know a few words of Spanish or French. I tried to learn more English when I knew I was going to the U.S., but when I arrived, I only remembered a few. 

In the Fast Company story image, you and other kids are wearing Red Guard armbands under the Red Guard flag, yet you claim you were not a Red Guard. 

If you zoom into that picture, you only need to look closely to see I have no red band on my arm. The image was taken in front of a Red Guard flag at the school that I attended in the late 70s. I wrote in the book that the situation got better after 1972. Still, I was never a Red Guard. 

One of my classmates also responded to Fang's article on his blog. What he says is consistent with what I wrote in the book, so he must be a classmate. He made comments based on Fang, assuming that what Fang said was in the book, however it was not. I would like to respond. 

You weren't in a labor camp. 

A: True, I did not say I was in a labor camp in the book, or ever. 

You did not go to college in 1977. 

True, I went in 1978; that is a typo in the book. 

How can the labor camp be 10 years long for you? 

He asked this question based on Mr. Fang Zhouzi's blog, which was an incorrect choice of words. I never said that I was at a labor camp. Forbes corrected this error. 

You did not publish your research and it was never published. 

Correct; I did not publish my research and it was never published. I left school; my mother and I went to the school and declared I had a mental breakdown so I would not be sent to remote China (page 258). You just didn't know the true reason I left. 

I want to say that I respect Mr. Fang Zhouzi, Forbes, and the classmate (sorry, I do not know the name since he used a pen name). Democracy means everyone is entitled to freedom of expression. Criticism is not a form of defamation; it is a form of speaking or seeking truth. I welcome constructive criticism.

Fu Ping's 2013 PBS Interview

On January 30, 2013, Fu Ping was the guest on PBS' Tavis Smiley show in which she told her life story. The highlights of this version include:

1. It remarkably lacks the mention of the more sensational stories such as four-horse-killing, rape, kidnapping, or Deng Xiaoping's involvement.
2. She claimed be assigned to be a regular factory worker starting at 8 "build radios and speedometers" and later become an electrician.
3. The three English words she knew while arriving at US were "Hello", "Thank you", and "Help".
4. She and her sister were living alone for 5 years. Their mother came back when she was 13.
5. She brought up the infanticide research of the American Steven Mosher to corroborate her own research and impact.

The entire interview could be viewed here. PBS also provided a full transcript:

Tavis: Starting a successful company is never easy, but it certainly must have seemed impossible to Ping Fu. As a child growing up in China under Mao, she was separated from her family and sent to a forced labor camp, where she endured unspeakable hardship.
In 1984 she made her way to the U.S. with $80 in her pocket and just three English words in her vocabulary: “Hello,” “Thank you,” and my favorite – “Help.”
Against all odds she found her way into software, indeed starting her own software company called Geomagic, a 3D technology company that she continues to lead as its CEO.
The new book about what is truly a remarkable journey is called “Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds.” Ping Fu, an honor to have you on this program.
Ping Fu: It’s a pleasure to be here.
Tavis: Thank you for your time. Let me start where this all began. When you were eight they came to get you, but tell me what life was like, what you recall of life before Mao’s Cultural Revolution and you heard that knock on the door. What was life like in the first eight years of life?
Fu: Oh, that was wonderful. I was living with my Shanghai papa and mama. They were the most loving parents I could have had, and I was the youngest one of six out of five siblings, and they played with me all the time. I was in the kitchen. My mom, like, loves to cook wonderful meals, and she always say she puts a lot of love in her food.
Tavis: So you’re eight in China. Mao’s revolution is in full swing. Your family gets that dreaded knock at the door. Take it from there.
Fu: Yeah. Things already started going bad a little bit, and my Shanghai papa was locked up. So I knew something’s happening; I was too young. But one day I heard this loud noise and the boots marching through our backyard. Then I heard my mom crying, saying, “She’s so little.”
I was in the library on the third floor, and I looked out and I saw the Red Guards marching in, and they said, “She’s there,” and I knew it was they came for me. They took me and that was the first day they told me that my Shanghai papa and mama was not my birth parents, and my Shanghai mama said, “Yes, that’s true. Don’t fight.”
I was screaming and kicking and saying, “You’re lying, you’re lying. Last week you told me I was your favorite,” and I was taken away without even being able to give her a hug.
Tavis: That sounds like a double trauma; the first trauma being that of being taken away, the second trauma being told that your Shanghai mom, Shanghai dad, were not your parents. How does an eight-year-old process all of that at the same time?
Fu: Well, it happened so quickly, and then I was put on this jam-packed train with strangers and children are crying. At that point I knew I was going to Nanjing to be with my birth parents. All I wanted is to be with somebody, because I didn't like to be alone and it was too confusing.
But when I arrived in Nanjing I just arrived a little too late when my Nanjing parents were put on a truck to be taken away also. So one day I lost the parents who raised me and parents who bore me.
Tavis: So at eight, you’re on the way to Nanjing, you think that you’re going to be with your parents. When you get there, they've been placed on another train; they’re already gone. So what happens?
Fu: There was a lot of chaos going on, and then a few hours later I was taken to this dormitory, which is the old student college dormitory, emptied out. Students all went home. Looked like a garbage can, literally. I was led to this room, and in there I found my little sister, who was only four years old.
Tavis: Let me back up for a second. I know we’re on PBS and this is a very learned audience, but not everybody understands what Mao’s Cultural Revolution was all about, what his modus operandi was, what his intent was. It occurs to me I should back up just to make sure that we’re all on the same page here for people to get a better understanding of what the Cultural Revolution was all about.
Fu: Right. So Mao sort of lost the power a few years before Cultural Revolution due to the famine that he created, and Cultural Revolution was his way to regain the power, kind of use Stalin’s method of fear, killing.
He turned the country upside-down and told us that we don’t need to go to formal education, we all need to learn from farmers and soldiers and workers, and that’s how we get re-educated. Cultural Revolution is the biggest prosecution of educated families.
Tavis: So at eight years old you end up in a dormitory and you’re looking out, basically, for your little sister at the age of eight. So take me back to that dormitory and tell me how life sort of begins anew for you in this camp, as it were.
Fu: Yeah. At the beginning it was really confusing and scary, because we didn't have food. The room has no wash basin, no kitchen facility, nothing, and we were taken to the soccer field to witness the killing of teachers, and we were brainwashed that we were nobody and we were born black, we were born with black blood. Our parents were called “black elements” and we were all bastards of black elements.
Tavis: What becomes your daily routine when you were eight years old – eight, nine, 10?
Fu: Yeah, so first few months was just chaos. We go through bitter meals, struggle sessions. We go scream that we were nobody. Then I think it’s about a year later I was assigned to work in a factory. Some of the older kids got sent to countryside, but I was too young to do that.
So I went to factory to build radios and speedometers, and then later I learned how to be an electrician, and just manual work.
Tavis: So when you’re nine or 10, to your point, you’re working in the factory, but as I read in your book, that’s a lot better for you. The experience of doing that is better for you in part, you argue in the book, because at least you’re doing something for the benefit of somebody else.
But tell me how you processed being in that factory as a nine, 10-year-old, working on radios, et cetera.
Fu: Well, being told that I was nobody and then going to a factory, the workers are grownups, so they are actually quite kind to me. Radio is such a thing that we all have at home, because the communists always broadcasting their messages.
So being able to, like, turn on the first radio that we build, and knowing that I can actually make that and that’s the one that’s being used by everybody, I feel a sense of accomplishment at that age, yeah.
Tavis: At such a young age, who was nurturing you? I’m trying to imagine eight, nine, 10, and you’re building radios and you’re taking care of your little sister, both sets of your parents are gone. An eight-year-old, nine-year-old, you’re still a baby, you’re a child, and children need to be nurtured and loved and held. Who’s doing that for you during this period?
Fu: Well, there wasn’t any. There wasn’t any nurturing. There were other people around, there’s other kids who don’t have parents, and then there will be communist families where the family come from red blood, supposedly.
I see them have parents, but only thing I have is the memory of my Shanghai papa and mama, the first eight years where I did have a very loving family. Otherwise, there was just nobody there to give you a hug or make food for you (crosstalk).
Tavis: What did you eat, how did you eat, what was your source of nutrition?”
Fu: Oh, God, we ate bad stuff. Sometimes we eat bitter meal. That’s just occasionally. Otherwise, I dig a lot of vegetable from the ground, called wild vegetable. We have so many kids, some kids are bigger than me, and then we all tell each other.
Even today I look for those wild vegetables. They’re really good, actually. Really, I raise chicken, so I have some eggs. Otherwise, there’s very little meat. I don’t remember having much meat at all.
Tavis: Yeah. How long does this experience – how long are you forced to endure this Maoist experience?
Fu: The Cultural Revolution lasted for 10 years plus two. I was alone about the first five years. Then my mom came back when I was 13. Four or five years later it did get a little better. It loosened up a little, and then in ’72, when Nixon visited China with ping-pong diplomacy and Deng Xiaoping briefly came back, it got further better. So the first few years, like four or five years, is probably the worst.
Tavis: I want to fast-forward, because you end up doing some work to expose another atrocity in the People’s Republic of China as it relates specifically to the one-child policy.
Take me from the camp where you were held during the Cultural Revolution, advance me a few years to your working on the writings about the one-child policy.
Fu: So the Cultural Revolution ended in 19 -
Tavis: ’7?
Fu: – ’76.
Tavis: Right.
Fu: Yeah. Then university starts in 1977. I went into college in ’78, when my father came back. I didn't have any choice what to study. I wanted to be astronaut, but I ended up to study Chinese literature, because that was assigned major for me.
Before graduation, I decided to do humanitarian topic for my thesis research. I heard in the countryside that girls are being killed or there’s forced abortion in very late terms due to the one-child policy.
One-child policy is every couple can only have one child. China was still 95 percent agriculture at that time. Farmers want boys. So I went to do that research, and then I turned my research to my teacher. She gave it to a friend at newspaper, where her friends is editor. So they wrote an editorial basically called stopping the gender inequality or killing. It was a good editorial coverage.
Little did I know that was the very first time Chinese newspaper admitted that was happening. That’s what got me in trouble, and I got thrown in jail for that.
Tavis: It’s bad enough that under Mao’s Cultural Revolution as a child you’re basically incarcerated, as it were, told what to do, when to come, where to go. So you’ve already dealt with this once in life.
Now the revolution’s over, you get a chance to go to college. You write about this inhumane activity, and you end up back in jail again for doing this. How did you process that?
Fu: It was really sad. I saw my life just turned around. Why now? I thought I was going to get killed, but I didn’t know what’s going to happen with my life, and I just started to love what I was doing in college.
But then my sister got older by then. I thought maybe it’s okay if I die. I don’t have responsibility anymore like when she was little. But it was very sad.
Tavis: So you get thrown in jail for writing about the inhumanity of this one-child policy and what’s happening to girls all throughout China. Ultimately at some point they tell you or you discover that you’re not going to be put to death, but you are getting kicked out of here.
Fu: Right.
Tavis: So we’re not going to kill you, but you've got to get out of China.
Fu: Right. I was asked to leave quietly.
Tavis: Right.
Fu: At the time, I didn't know. Now I knew because there was an American journalist who wrote about the same thing, and published a book in 1983 called “Broken Earth.” His book and my research at the same year was a coincidence.
But it formed a perfect storm for international outcry for human rights violations. So China’s new government was embarrassed by what’s being revealed, and accidentally they actually validated that claim.
So killing me is only going to cause more trouble, so I was asked to leave and never come back again. Do not apply for political asylum. Just go be a student and start your life somewhere else.
Tavis: That somewhere else was where?
Fu: Well, “somewhere else” luckily happened to be United States.
Tavis: Where specifically?
Fu: I got a visa from University of New Mexico, and then I flew to San Francisco with $80 travelers checks in my pocket. When I landed I was $5 short for the ticket, and this American man behind me gave $5 to the counter so I could buy my ticket. That was my first impression of American – that people are generous and helpful here to new immigrants.
Tavis: So that extra $5 got you from San Francisco to New Mexico.
Fu: Right.
Tavis: But when you get here your English isn’t so good.
Fu: No.
Tavis: Yeah.
Fu: I tried to learn more, but I couldn't remember anything. By the time I landed I only remembered three words.
Tavis: Yeah. So you sojourn to New Mexico and knowing so little English when you get to Mexico – it’s one thing you don’t have any money, but you can’t even speak the language. So when you get to New Mexico, what happens? How do you navigate your way through? How do you get around? How do you make all this work?
Fu: Right. So first I studied English as a second language, and I knew unlike immigrants who come here and have connections to the homeland, I knew I couldn't go back, so I have to stay here. I stayed with my English teacher so that I can learn more English quickly.
Then I observed that my English teacher couldn't find a job, having a Ph.D. in literature. (Laughter) I saw that (unintelligible).
Tavis: That’s not funny, but it is, yeah.
Fu: It was, yes. So I thought I was going to study comparative literature, and I didn't have enough English, either, so I thought, okay, I’m going to have to study something with a marketable skill.
Tavis: Right.
Fu: So I asked someone what can I study since I didn't do formal education, I didn't have math and science. Someone said, “Well, check out this new field called computer science,” and I said, “What’s that?” He said, “It’s manmade language, and you use it to make stuff.”
I was like, “Great. I’m good with language and I know how to make stuff.” That’s what I was going to study. So fortunately that was a great up-rising new field.
Tavis: Yeah. What do you make, looking back on it now, on how that just came to be that the burgeoning growth of computer technology just happened to coincide with your arriving here. Somebody suggested maybe you ought to try this.
I’m asking how you process that, because in a minute we’re going to go to all the great success you’ve had and why you’re now sitting on President Obama’s commission and committee. It’s quite a fascinating journey. What do you make looking back on the decision at that time when you could barely speak English, to study computer technology, computer science?
Fu: Well, what it taught me with that experience is that behind every closed door there’s new opportunity. It’s like every time life shut door, close on me, and I end up doing something else and there’s a new world opened up to me.
So in my experience I learned in my life journey many times when something that when it looks like there’s no road ahead of you, behind that mountain there’s another road. So if you try, you can always find a path.
Tavis: Just give me some key markers along the road, key decisions, key moments, that happened for you that have allowed you to get to this place of Geomagic once you left New Mexico.
Fu: Okay. Well, interesting, my key moments are all unconventional. First I met this entrepreneur in San Diego. I worked for him while I was studying computer science. Then I took a job at Bell Labs because it’s an iconic company in the United States. I took a pay cut from the startup job to the Bell Labs job in pursuit of innovation and education.
Then I got bored at Bell Labs. I took another job at university, again took a pay cut, because I saw that I was going to make the movie, “Terminator 2,” with Arnold, and so that was something I really wanted to do. It’s art and it’s science, it’s visual, and I would do that without being paid.
Now interestingly, at the startup company I did database, and at Bell Labs I did network, and at the national center, supercomputing center, I did graphics. Those three are what formed the basis for the Mosaic browser, which turned into Netscape and Internet Explorer, and Marc Andreessen was my student.
So being able to guide this group of students to create the first multimedia Internet browser comes from my trajectory of pursuing something that I’m interested, not necessarily a higher position or better pay.
Tavis: Yeah.
Fu: But it gives me that basis to do that.
Tavis: Given where you started, what do you make of being on the front side of the Internet browser, Netscape – these are terms now – Marc Andreessen is iconic, even at his young age now, in Silicon Valley. He was your student, but what do you make of how all this came to be, given where you started?
Fu: I think part of it, when I look at it, was that I was a nobody and I wanted to be somebody, and I didn't know where to start. So I went this life journey of never trying to admit, or never agree to that I was nobody or I couldn't do something.
But I also didn't have a target, so I traversed my life in this unconventional way, just pursuing whatever I had passion, whatever I feel could contribute to society or this technology is going to be tomorrow’s technology.
So I pursued that, and that’s why I say life is a mountain range. At every peak the view is different, but for you to arrive to a different peak, sometimes you have to go down before you go up.
Here, a lot of time we don’t want to take a down step. We just want to keep going up, which there is nothing wrong with that, but you’re stuck at one peak and one view.
Tavis: Yeah, it’s anti-American to step down.
Fu: That’s right.
Tavis: Yeah, that’s our problem, but you’re right, you can’t get to that next peak without -
Fu: Without going -
Tavis: – the ebb and the flow, yeah. So tell me about your work at Geomagic these days.
Fu: Well, it’s very interesting, because when I started Geomagic I wanted to combine Internet technology with manufacturing. Makes sense, because I was working Internet and I came from manufacturing.
Idea was to change the manufacturing to what I call mass customization or personalized fabrication. So you see my shoe, this is a 3D-printed shoe. There’s 3D printing as a new technology for tomorrow’s manufacturing.
Tavis: Get that shoe, Jonathan. Go ahead, keep on talking, I’m sorry.
Fu: Then it’s molded to my feet, it’s a MOMA piece, it’s exhibited at the Modern Museum of Art in New York. Lightweight, material is biodegradable.
So my passion is about how can we change the things that I design and manufacture such that we can bring jobs back to our country, and it’ll be greener technology, so there’s not a lot of shipping across the seas. It’s less carbon footprint. So I think this is the next big thing.
Tavis: Yeah. I think I get it and I think the audience gets it now, but when you decided to call this book “Bend, Not Break,” what did you have in mind?
Fu: Resilience. Yeah. I think whether or not it’s entrepreneurship, whether or not it’s a country being divided or business is going through a difficult environment, that we need to build resilience in our system or in how we live.
Tavis: Yeah. I have been to China. I've had the honor of traveling to China many, many times now, but my very first trip I was taken by a friend of mine in New York who’s probably watching tonight named An Ping, and after spending a week or two in China and having just been moved the very first time I went and learned so much, it was literally the last day of the trip I was sitting with An Ping.
We were sitting waiting on a plane to take off or something, traveling between Beijing and Shanghai, and I didn't realize that she had grown up in that Cultural Revolution during the time of Chairman Mao.
After being there for all these days and learning so much, the most moving part of the entire trip was sitting there talking to her about what it was like trying to navigate and move through that period of history that you had to endure.
I’m so glad that An Ping got through it and I’m glad that you got through it, and I’m glad that you are doing the wonderful work that you’re doing now. Tell me quickly about your work with President Obama. You’re on this entrepreneurship committee?
Fu: Yeah, I’m on the advisory board for entrepreneurship and innovation, which are two topics very dear to my heart.
Tavis: Right.
Fu: So we meet quarterly to give advice on policy, how to remove barriers so that policy is more favorable for entrepreneurship and innovation, and we believe innovation is the key for us to create jobs in this country.
Tavis: Yeah. Life is funny, isn't it? You start out being told that you are nobody, and you end up hanging out with the president of the United States a few years later.
Fu: Yeah.
Tavis: That’s funny.
Fu: So life has treated me well.
Tavis: Yeah. The book is called “Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds,” by Ping Fu, founder and CEO of Geomagic, Inc. Ping, good to have you on the program. All the best to you.
Fu: Thank you.