找回密码
 立即注册
搜索
查看: 9645|回复: 10

傅苹:从文革劳改犯到奥巴马的科技创新智囊(附方舟子文)

[复制链接]

1

主题

8228

回帖

2万

积分

管理员

积分
27247
发表于 2013-1-27 06:26:34 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
未来得及给母亲一个拥抱,被迫离开了温暖的家


“我知道他们是来抓我的”,傅苹说。故事发生在1966年,文化大革命刚刚席卷中国,那时傅苹只有8岁。“我在院子里听到了巨大的噪声,看到了闯入的红卫兵。然后我听到母亲不停哭泣,说‘她还小’。”他们抓住了我。我还没有来得及给母亲一个拥抱,就被他们从上海带走——我离开了我唯一的家。

离开父母后,傅苹就在南京的一处政府劳改营生活了近10年,在那里她照料着自己和妹妹。她在那里挨饿,被洗脑,受尽折磨,甚至遭遇轮奸,被迫在工厂做童工且没有受到正规的学校教育。过了一些年,学校重新开放,傅苹成为了苏州大学的学生并开始了她的新生活。那段时间是短暂的,临近毕业的几个月中,她关于弑杀女婴的毕业论文震动了全国媒体。她也因此被判入狱后被流放,梦想就这样还未成形就被无情地扼杀了。
之后只知道三个英语单词的傅苹毅然踏入了美国,开始了全新的生活。她靠做一些稀奇古怪的工作支撑学业,最终获得了计算机学位,这段经历为她日后成为互联网时期领军的革新人物奠定了基础。1997年,傅苹与丈夫成立了科技公司——Geomagic,来设计从个性化的鞋子和假肢到美国宇航局的航天飞船的维修部件的定制制造的3D软件。2005年,公司创收3千万美元,傅苹也因此荣获了《公司》杂志“年度企业家”的殊荣。






如今傅苹受邀成为了奥巴马政府“国家咨询委员会创新与企业家精神研究中心”(National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship)的智囊之一。这个月她同意将Geomagic出售给3D打印领域的领航者3D System,她随后会出任这家公司的首席战略官。她相信在这个3D打印领域发展的更广阔的平台和更为成熟的时机上,对美国的制造业进行革新性的改变会最终会成为现实。
傅苹走出中国劳改营,蝶变为美国科技领军的革新人物的全过程被记录在了她的回忆录Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds中。她认为这是“恐惧”和“心灵治愈”的重温。傅苹与福布斯记者畅谈了自己黑暗的往事和这段经历如何将她塑造为富有顽强生命力的领导者。

为人和善 适应逆境

“这个国家处于混乱中”,傅苹回忆她童年时的中国说道。傅苹但是出生于富裕的知识分子家庭,正是因为家境殷实,她的父母被下放到农村去劳改,那时她与4岁的妹妹也被迫在红卫兵的控制下生活在只有一个房间的宿舍中。“他们说我们‘狗屁不是’——我们的父母因为有罪于人民,所以我们要在这里为他们赎罪”,她回忆道。“他们强迫我们以泥土和树根为食。我们还被迫目睹我们的老师被残忍地杀害。”
她最黑暗的记忆发生在她10岁时,那时成帮结伙男孩子跟踪她,将她打晕甚至强奸她。她并为因为得到法律上的帮助和心灵的安慰,相反她的同伴们开始在劳改所散播谣言说她是“破鞋”——这是中国对勾三搭四女人的比喻。“很多天来,我想这种生活真是生不如死”,傅苹说。“但是我还有一个小妹妹,我不知道要是我死了,或者我是另外一个人,很粗心大意,她该怎么办”。傅苹没有放弃,相反她专心照顾好妹妹,做好自己在工厂的工作。她还用一个别人完全意想不到的利器——善良应对“破鞋”这个嘲弄。于是,她潜心了解这些人的弱点,然后去帮助他们。很快敌人就化作了朋友。
傅苹在困境中培养了自己的顽强的适应能力,这也为日后成为冲劲十足的初创公司首席执行官做了铺垫。她说:“我非常擅长自学,因为我没有去学校念书。变革吓不倒我。变革、适应和自学的能力是任何企业家的必备素质。”

收获事业与爱情 在异国开花结果

傅苹在25岁的时候曾有一个离开中国两周的机会。当时她只携带80美元从中国飞到了旧金山,这些钱足够使她买票飞到阿尔伯克基的新墨西哥大学去学习英语。但是到了机场柜台,她发现机票涨价了。“我还需要5美元才能买到机票”,她回忆道。“后来站在我后面的美国男人给了我5美元,这使我学到了一点:“做人要时时慷慨大方。”
初到美国乍到,傅苹没有任何朋友与资源,所以她加倍努力工作。她做过保姆、家庭保洁和女服务员来赚钱来交学费,并租了爬满蟑螂的公寓。她的计算机成绩——这个和英语没有什么瓜葛的人造语言极为优异——后来她在初创公司找到了计算机编程的职位,之后还开始在大公司从事相关的工作。她经过不懈的努力最后成为了明星雇员,但是却没有办公室以外的社交生活。“我刚来到美国时是单打独斗”,她说,“我没有时间去社交,后来成为了企业家,发现首席执行官也非常孤独,正所谓高处不胜寒。”
后来,浪漫的爱情开花结果,傅苹与一位数学教授相爱了。后来她为了拉近与心爱之人的距离,在美国国家超级电脑应用中心(the National Center for Supercomputing Applications,NCSA)找到了一份工作。她的个人生活和工作经历了多年的漂浮总算是稳定下来了。后来她结了婚,有了一个孩子。这时她开始努力钻研计算机科技的未来方向。傅平在NCSA工作时,就致力于研究早期云计算模型、电脑动画和3D打印技术。她负责领导整个研究小组的研究成员,其中包括第一家容易操作的网页浏览器——马赛克软件公司的创立者、当今知名的网景企业家马克•安德森(Marc Andreessen)。安德森的成功和不断演变的3D打印功能给了傅苹灵感,她的心中涌现了一个大胆的构想:成立Geomagic。

发挥领导潜能 逐步深耕市场

“我称呼自己是一个不情愿的企业家”,傅平说道。“那时我的女儿才四岁。开创企业就像生育子女。你一旦有了自己的孩子,是无法再把它送回到自己的肚子里去的。”即使这样,在20世纪90年代后期,大家都在讨论创立科技公司。傅苹非常迷恋定制生产的概念。她设想比如与其按照一定标准规模生产网球鞋还不如规模制造独一无二的产品,每件产品都按照客户的个人需求来定制。Geomagic设计出了3D制图软件并使她的心中的蓝图成为了现实。
作为Geomagic的首席执行官,傅苹非常善于向投资商推销自己的愿景和想法。红卫兵当年对她公开的侮辱将她在商界的胆怯一扫而空,她募集了650万美元,并迅速招募员工组建了公司。但是不管怎样,童年时红卫兵对她“狗屁不是”的洗脑仍然是她心中挥之不去的阴霾,商务会议中满是个头高大的白人男性高管总是挫伤她的信心。“我想我需要雇佣他们中的一个来运营公司”,她说。于是,她从IBM挖来了明星员工,自己退居幕后,“这个人虽然能力强,但是他却没有初创公司的经验,简直是从零开始经营公司”,“那时我的生存本能影响了我的决策”。
几个月后,Geomagic稳住了三个大客户。很快它在傅苹的掌舵下实现了快速增长并向海外拓展。“这些都帮助我建立了信心,后来我发现我也可以成功。”

构建美好愿景 树立行业标杆

傅苹说她并不打算出售Geomagic,但是机会之神敲响了她的门,时间也恰到好处。“3D打印会是下一个业界的关注的热点”,她说,上市经营的3D System会赋予她更广阔的舞台来影响整个行业,“这会颠覆设计和制作的本质”,目前已经出现打印像饰品、鞋子、建筑材料甚至是肉类(打印外壳和刺激自然增长)等定制消费品的技术。“一头牛可以喂饱整个国家”,她说。
傅苹下一步的打算是什么呢?“我想做一些事情,现在可以创造就业机会、为经济做出贡献,但未来可以帮助我们打造一个可持续发展的社会。目前我的愿景是运用3D技术为人类造福祉。这个目标是永恒不变的”。

原文地址:http://article.yeeyan.org/bilingual/345856


回复

使用道具 举报

1

主题

8228

回帖

2万

积分

管理员

积分
27247
 楼主| 发表于 2013-1-30 01:25:35 | 显示全部楼层

方舟子:傅苹的“人生传奇”

  近日国内门户网站和微博公知都在传福布斯中文网的一篇报道《从劳改犯到高科技企业家:傅苹的人生路》http://www.forbeschina.com/news/news.php?id=22981&page=1 ,傅苹被称为“3D打印机的创始人”——其实她和她的前夫创建的杰魔公司(Geomagic)是做3D数据采集、分析和建模的,并非做3D打印机;又被称为“奥巴马团队的人”——其实她只是美国商业部组织的创新和创业国家咨询委员会(National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship)的二十多个委员之一。福布斯的这篇报道,是为傅苹新书《弯而不折》(Bend, Not Break)造势的众多报道之一,关于她在中国的经历,离奇得让人难以置信。


  该报道称,傅苹在文革期间,“离开父母身边后,傅苹需要照顾自己和年幼的妹妹,在南京劳改队里度过了十年。她在那里接受思想改造,忍饥挨饿,饱受折磨,惨遭轮奸,被迫在工厂里当了一名童工,没有接受良好的教育。”

  傅苹出生于1958年,文革期间她还未成年,未成年人和年幼妹妹被送进劳改队的,闻所未闻,不见于其他人回忆文革的任何资料,算是傅苹一个人的独特的残酷经历吧。问题是,1977年文革结束恢复高考,傅苹就考上了苏州大学(苏州大学是1982年才办的,也许她上的是其前身江苏师范学院)。1977年的高考是要政审的,傅苹既然一直在劳改队,怎么通过的政审?1977年的高考竞争极为激烈,录取率不到5%,傅苹既然是在劳改队长大的,没有接受良好的教育,她是怎么考上苏州大学的?天才吗?

  福布斯的报道称,傅苹回忆:“我们被告知自己身份低下——我们的父母犯下了反对人民的罪行,我们待在这里替他们赎罪。他们给我们吃泥土和树皮。我们还被拉到现场,亲眼看到我们的老师被杀害。”

  在2010年傅苹接受美国国家公共电台(NPR)的采访时,说红卫兵为了吓唬他们这些黑帮小孩,在他们面前处决了两名教师,其中一名教师是用四马分尸的方式处死的:身体被绑在四匹马上,马朝四个方向跑,身体被撕裂了。(见:http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_988_Ping_Fu.mp3 从13:30开始)

  关于文革虐杀的情形,有很多回忆,有活活打死的,有活埋的,但四马分尸的酷刑,也是闻所未闻,只见于傅苹的口中。问题是,按她的说法,这并非像她被轮奸那样死无对证,劳改队的其他小孩也都被集中起来目睹了,为什么这些小孩没有一个人后来出来说他们见过如此奇特的惨无人道的一幕,难道这些小孩都死绝了?

  要把一个大活人用四马分尸,说起来容易,做起来难,光是要找到四匹训练有素的马就不容易,红卫兵如此大费周章处死一个人,就为了吓唬小孩?中国传统有五马分尸的说法,那是对车裂的通俗说法,车裂时犯人是被绑在马车上的,而不是直接绑在马上,用马车显然更容易操作。而且车裂是酷刑之最,在中国历史上就没有搞过几次,每次都有记载,五代之后就绝迹了。四马分尸是古代西方的酷刑,竟在20世纪60年代的中国南京被红卫兵复活了,这中国历史上的首个活人被四马分尸,傅苹是唯一的公开的亲历者,不值得酷刑研究者找她好好探讨吗?把受害者和其他目睹者查个清楚吗?

  福布斯报道说,“在(苏州大学)毕业前几个月,傅苹发表了一篇毕业论文,讨论中国农村溺杀女婴的现象,引起了全国新闻界的关注。但她也因此入狱,被判劳教。”

  2005年傅苹接受《公司》(Inc.)采访时,对这段经历说得更详细:1980年她向教授递交了关于中国农村溺杀女婴的现象的论文。几个月后,1981年1月,上海最大的报纸(在电台采访中,她说是《文汇报》)报道了她的研究结果。随后《人民日报》也报道了。然后引起了国际舆论谴责,联合国对中国实施制裁。于是在1981年2月,她被关进监狱。http://www.inc.com/magazine/20051201/ping-fu_pagen_3.html

  我检索了1981年1~2月的《人民日报》,并没有关于傅苹或有关中国农村溺杀女婴的报道。实际上有点中国政治常识的人都知道,那个时期《人民日报》关于国内的新闻都是歌功颂德的,怎么可能有这种影响中国形象的报道呢?说联合国制裁中国,也是没有常识的说法,联合国怎么可能去制裁安理会常任理事国?她不知道中国作为安理会常任理事国对联合国的制裁决议有否决权吗?为什么没有其他中国人知道联合国曾经在1981年制裁中国?傅苹是怎么知道的?

  在接受美国电台采访时,傅苹对自己被捕的经历描述非常有戏剧性:她在校园里走,突然被人用黑布套住头,塞进车里带走……这完全就是黑帮电影里的镜头嘛。在1981年,中国公安要在中国大学校园带走一个学生,竟不敢光明正大地来?

  据《公司》的报道,傅苹只是被关了三天就放出来了,并没有被判“劳教”,而是判决把她驱逐出境,驱逐去美国留学。两周后她被送往去美国的飞机,到新墨西哥大学学英语,她说她不知道为什么要被送去那所大学。

  因为写了一篇负面报道的论文,就被驱逐去美国留学,天底下居然有这样的好事?中国判决驱逐出境只限于对外国人,到90年代才有把异议人士赶到美国的做法,那也只限于非常著名的异议人士。傅苹当时是一个默默无闻的大学生,就享受了驱逐到美国留学的待遇,那真是个奇迹。在80年代初要自费去美国留学,是多么困难的一件事,没有特殊的海外关系,根本不可能实现。

  她说她不知道为什么会被送去新墨西哥大学,但是在其新书《弯而不折》中,她却说她到达美国后,试图和一个姓盛的先生联系,此人是她父亲的学生(她父亲是南航的教师),她去新墨西哥大学是盛先生联系的。

  福布斯的报道说:“傅苹在美国开始了她的新生活,当时她独自一人,身无分文,只会说3个英文单词。”

  傅苹在接受采访时,多次说她刚到美国时只会说3个英文单词。但是对哪3个英文单词,她每次的说法却不一样。《公司》说这三个单词是please, thank you, help。其新书的介绍说这三个单词是thank you, hello, help.(http://www.bendnotbreak.com/about.php)她接受NPR采访时,说这三个单词是thank you, help, excuse me。把这三种说法综合起来,都有五个单词了。

  据《公司》报道,傅苹去苏州大学时,是想学工程或商业,但是党分配她去学英语,怎么可能只会三个英语单词呢?即使她不是英语专业的,上大学期间总要上英语公共课的,即使没学好,又怎么可能只记得最简单的三个英语单词呢?

  所有这些说法,都只能骗骗对中国情况不了解的老外。傅苹也知道这一点,所以当她面对中国人时,就老实多了。比如她在接受美国之音中文部的采访时,对她在文革期间的经历是这么说的:

  “在中国的时候,我成长的时候是文化大革命,没有读过什么书,大多就是下乡、学农、学工那样的经历。”http://www.voachinese.com/content/article/460383.html

  下乡、学农、学工,不就是当时所有中国学生的普通经历吗?有什么稀奇的?怎么一面向美国英文媒体,就换了另外一幅嘴脸?福布斯的报道原本是英文的,她大概也没有想到会被翻译成中文并广为传播吧?

  真实的情况可能是这样的:相比于当时的其他中国学生,傅苹在文革期间受到了比较好的教育——毕竟她有一个在大学当教师的父亲,所以高考一恢复她就能考上大学。大学毕业后,又通过她父亲的关系,到美国语言学校读书,后来去读计算机科学的学位。她说她留学期间是通过当清洁工、在餐馆打工来谋生的,这属于非法打工,且不去管她。当时的中国留学生,为了能在美国留下来,会想尽各种办法。其中一种做法是编造自己在中国受迫害的离奇经历申请政治避难。反正再离奇的经历,美国人也会信以为真的。有的人编着编着,连自己也当真了。

  2013.1.28
  
原文地址:http://www.21ccom.net/articles/dlpl/shpl/2013/0129/76118.html
回复

使用道具 举报

0

主题

8173

回帖

2万

积分

管理员

积分
28918
发表于 2013-2-3 03:30:56 | 显示全部楼层
回复

使用道具 举报

0

主题

8173

回帖

2万

积分

管理员

积分
28918
发表于 2013-2-4 01:18:50 | 显示全部楼层
Clarifying the Facts inBend, Not Break

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 1984 -- 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 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.

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.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pi ... reak_b_2603405.html
回复

使用道具 举报

0

主题

8173

回帖

2万

积分

管理员

积分
28918
发表于 2013-2-4 01:19:59 | 显示全部楼层
方舟子: 谎话连篇的傅苹“澄清”声明

  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/pi ... reak_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/wom ... ch-firmament?page=0,1#.UQzHxqVkw1I ),NPR甚至说她十年间没进过教室(http://www.npr.org/2006/03/18/52 ... -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?(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?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
是布什政府制裁联合国,和联合国制裁中国有什么关系?而且布什是1989年上台的,那
时候傅苹已在美国生活5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,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。

  2013.2.2.

和讯博客首发
回复

使用道具 举报

0

主题

8173

回帖

2万

积分

管理员

积分
28918
发表于 2013-2-5 22:11:14 | 显示全部楼层
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/ ... ook-chinese-critics

China-author-Ping-Fu-010.jpg

Chinese cast doubt over executive's rags to riches tale

Author of book describing her path from cultural revolution to head of US technology firm accuses critics of smear campaign

Tania Branigan in Beijing and Ed Pilkington in New York
The Guardian, Tuesday 5 February 2013

Ping Fu has been forced to defend her book from accusations that some of it is not true. Photograph: Anna Webber/WireImage
Her story is an incredible tale of triumph over tragedy: a tormented childhood during China's Cultural Revolution, detention and forced exile after exposing female infanticide – then glittering success as the head of a major US technology firm.

"It sounds too unbelievable for fiction, but this is the true story of a life in two worlds," enthuses the website for Ping Fu's autobiography, Bend Not Break. In one interview to promote the book, the entrepreneur related how Michelle Obama had invited her back to the White House for a nightcap after the 2010 State of the Union address.

But after Chinese readers flagged up a series of inconsistencies and improbabilities in interviews she has given, Fu has been forced to defend her book from accusations that some of it is exaggerated or untrue. "I am shocked and saddened by the things that have been said," Fu told the Guardian. "It is very, very hurtful because it brings me right back to what happened to me when I was eight years old."

Fu is chief executive and cofounder of the 3D software company Geomagic, whose laser scanning technology has been used by Hollywood film studios, car designers and historians making a precise replica of the Statue of Liberty. She arrived in the US aged 25, passing through college and spells as a babysitter, cleaner and waitress before rising to her current position as a prominent business executive and board member of the White House advisory panel, the National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

Many of the questions swirling around Bend Not Break relate to the 54-year-old's horrifying account of being wrenched from her parents when the Cultural Revolution started in 1966, and sent to a re-education camp where she was gang-raped at the age of 10. An estimated 36 million people were persecuted during the turmoil of that time and numerous families were torn apart.

But sceptics, including Fang Zhouzi, an influential blogger who scrutinises Chinese academia, say much of Fu's story does not ring true. Fu has now acknowledged that her 2010 account to NPR radio of being forced to watch Red Guards executing a teacher by using four horses to tear the victim apart was an "emotional memory" and probably wrong.

"When I was young, these are the stories being told to us and in my nightmares they come back again and again. That time was so traumatic. I was taken away from my parents," she said.

But she now accepts that her imagination may have played tricks. "Somehow in my mind I always thought I saw it, but now I'm not sure my memory served me right. I probably saw it in a movie or something, and I acknowledge that's a problem."

There are also queries about the circumstances surrounding her departure from China. The opening line of the book reads: "When I was 25 years old, the Chinese government quietly deported me." Sceptics point out that usually only prominent dissidents go into exile by arrangement.

Fu said she hadn't used "deported" in the draft of her memoir. The word was suggested as an amendment by her co-author and editors as a way to "attract readers".

But she added that by the dictionary definition it was accurate to say she had been deported. "If you are asked to leave your country and it is not voluntary, that is a form of deportation."

According to Fu's book, she was forced to leave because of her university thesis on female infanticide prompted by the one-child policy. A Shanghai newspaper learned of her groundbreaking research and "called for an end to the madness" in an editorial comment subsequently republished by the People's Daily – in what would have been an astonishing move for the staid official Communist party newspaper. That sparked an international outcry and her detention, she wrote.

After Fang said he found no trace of the commentary, Fu responded in a column in the Huffington Post: "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. 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."

Adrian Zackheim, publisher of Portfolio books, Penguin's business imprint, said he stood by Bend Not Break, adding that he had "absolute confidence" in Fu and her memoir. "I have no doubts that the book is substantially correct and that attempts to pick apart elements of it are political attacks."

Zackheim said Portfolio had no plans to look into the veracity of the book. "This is a memoir of a woman's life, it's not a work of journalism. Are there errors in the book? I can't say, but if there are they are errors of memory."
回复

使用道具 举报

1

主题

8228

回帖

2万

积分

管理员

积分
27247
 楼主| 发表于 2013-2-14 16:35:57 | 显示全部楼层

Ping Fu's childhood tales of China's cultural revolution spark controver

A successful US entrepreneur faces mounting questions over her widely lauded tale of childhood torment in China's cultural revolution, as fresh contradictions emerge and experts cast doubt on key elements of her story.

Ping Fu's rags-to-riches memoir Bend Not Break says she was torn away from her parents at eight, brutally abused and sent to work in a factory; then forced to leave China for the US after triggering an international outcry over female infanticide as a student. She went on to found software company Geomagic, currently being acquired by 3D Systems.

Critics acknowledge the horrors of the cultural revolution, but question Fu's personal account. She has already conceded that a description of Red Guards killing a teacher by tying their victim to four horses was an "emotional memory" and probably wrong. Closer examination of her book and interviews reveal numerous conflicting claims and experts told the Guardian several parts of her story were implausible.

Fu, 54, said she was traumatised and hurt by the criticism, adding: "I don't know who is behind this, but somebody is."

One of her most striking claims is that Sun Yat-sen, revered as the father of modern China, "raised my grandfather and granduncle as his own sons" – akin to a Briton being reared by Winston Churchill. Prof John Wong of the University of Sydney, an expert on Sun's life, said he had no knowledge of such wards.

Fu told the Guardian: "That was what I was told by my family before I left China. I believe this is true. My mother says it's in history books." She then added that Sun was attentive towards them, rather than actually adopting them.

In a chapter of her book titled Factory Worker, Fu describes labouring in factories for a decade until schools reopened in 1976. She describes working six hours a day, six days a week and told an interviewer she never went to school in 10 years.

Experts on the cultural revolution told the Guardian schools mostly reopened in 1968 or 1969 and that pupils had lessons in factories to learn skills, but were not used as labour.

Fu said: "For 10 years I didn't have proper schooling. I was sent to study in the factory, and sometimes in farms."

A photograph supplied to media by Fu shows her posing with a little red book, Mao badge and armband. Michel Bonnin of Tsinghua University and Prof Yin Hongbiao of Beijing University said it showed she was not disgraced as a "black element" at the time, as she claimed; Fu said it was common for children to be pictured pledging allegiance to Mao, "whether 'black' or 'red'".

Fu also says she was arrested and criticised by Suzhou University authorities after Deng Xiaoping, then China's paramount leader, met student publishers. She says Deng had seen a daring article from the popular magazine she edited.

Perry Link, an expert on modern Chinese literature at the University of California at Riverside, said student magazine representatives met in 1979, but added: "I do not believe for a moment that Deng Xiaoping ever came near the group."

Neither he nor others knows of a representative from Fu's group, Red Maple, attending. Fu said she believed the article was selected for This Generation, the joint publication from the meeting, but Link's copy shows it is not included.

Yinghong Cheng, now a professor of history at Delaware state university, studied at the same time and in the same building at Suzhou as Fu, and had his own literary group. He told the Guardian: "I am completely unaware of that group [Red Maple] and publication, and if it had been that popular I would have known about it."

Fu, who supplied a copy of her magazine, said her contemporaries might not have heard of the society because it was underground. She said Deng met the representatives at the same time as Communist Youth League leaders, noting that she was told about the meeting and was not present.

The entrepreneur claims she was ordered to leave China after exposing female infanticide in the early 80s, writing that in a few months of research she "witnessed with her own eyes" drowned and suffocated female infants. Last month, she told a radio station she watched "hundreds of baby girls being killed in front of my eyes. I saw girls being tossed into the river."

Therese Hesketh of University College London, an expert on population controls in China, said: "I have never heard stories of this kind. Infanticide did of course occur, but was not commonplace … It certainly was not done in public as even at that time to be caught meant a possible murder charge."

Fu told the Guardian that she mis-spoke in the live radio interview and should have said "my research was based on hundreds of cases, and I saw baby girls killed right in front of my eyes".

She added: "If you went to the countryside and to the family planning unit it was going on all the way down the line in every village and every school. Very few people were allowed to go to the poor areas. These kinds of things happened, and China doesn't want people to know it happened."

The entrepreneur once said Deng personally intervened to free her when she was jailed due to the resulting outcry – a remarkable detail not mentioned in her book.

Other questions include when Fu left China: she has said variously that it was two weeks or over a year after her release.

Fu said she had been wrong to call the criticism a smear campaign, adding she had realised the people she thought were attacking her were telling their own stories of the cultural revolution.

"I hope that this will turn into a more civil discussion about what happened and if any good can come from it I don't mind that people have turned their anger towards me so long as we can heal together," she said.

Adrian Zackheim, publisher of Penguin's business imprint, Portfolio, said: "ing Fu wrote in the Author's Note at the front of her book: 'I have tried my best to remember and describe the events and people in my life. Mostly, I have used real names, although some names have been altered to protect privacy. Many details happened more than forty years ago and I've tried as much as possible to verify the facts.'

"Sometimes, despite everyone's best efforts, minor mistakes appear in nonfiction books. Whenever they are brought to an author's attention they are corrected in future printings. Ping has already acknowledged several of these, and if any additional corrections are required, of course those will be made as well."

原为地址:http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/ ... cultural-revolution
回复

使用道具 举报

1

主题

8228

回帖

2万

积分

管理员

积分
27247
 楼主| 发表于 2013-2-17 18:55:22 | 显示全部楼层

方舟子: 再说傅苹的谎言和狡辩

英国《卫报》在2013年2月13日发的第二篇关于傅苹回忆录引起的争议的报道很下功夫,不仅把我们已发现的问题拿去询问专家和让傅苹解释,而且还新发现了两处此前我们没有注意到的问题。

  一处是傅苹在书中声称孙中山“将我的爷爷和叔公像亲生儿子一样养大”,在研究孙中山生平的专家质疑这一说法后,傅苹对记者改口说,孙中山是照顾他们,而不是实际收养他们。报道发表后,傅苹在加拿大人John Kennedy的博客下面留言,称她的曾祖父是民国烈士傅慈祥,并奇怪专家为何要否认其存在。http://www.scmp.com/comment/blog ... s?page=all#comments

  没有人否认历史上有过傅慈祥这个人,专家否认的是孙中山与傅家存在收养关系。傅苹有可能是傅慈祥的曾孙女并靠这层关系去美国留学,那么傅家与孙中山的关系究竟有多密切呢?

  傅慈祥是孙中山创建的兴中会的成员,1900年与唐才常成立自立军, 准备在武汉三镇起事,被张之洞发觉而遇害,史称“自立军起义”或“庚子起事”。傅慈祥留有两个儿子:傅光培(也叫傅养荪)、傅光植(也叫傅芸荪)(还有一个儿子傅光祖似乎没有成年)。小儿子傅光植默默无闻,大儿子傅光培则是武汉名流,写过多篇回忆文章,在《缅怀先父傅慈祥——纪念庚子汉口起事八十周年》一文中他写道:

  “1912年四月,孙中山先生交卸临时大总统职后,莅临首义之区视察,那时我才十二岁(方舟子按:应是十六岁)。先父同学刘道仁引我去见孙先生,我问刘怎称呼?刘叫我称大总统。我向孙先生鞠躬称大总统。刘向孙先生介绍:‘这是傅慈祥的儿子。’孙先生抚摸着我的头亲切地说:‘不要叫我什么总统,叫我伯伯好了。’孙先生问了我的年龄后,嘱我好好读书,继承父志。”

  在傅慈祥牺牲11年后,孙中山才首次见到傅慈祥的儿子,而且连年龄都不知道,其陌生可知,怎么可能存在收养或近乎收养的关系?孙中山只是客气地要傅光培叫他伯伯,就被傅光培大书特书,传为佳话(一些文献都提及此事),如果对傅家子弟有实质性的照顾,例如接济、提携,那更要大肆宣扬了。但是傅光培却只字不提,说明他与孙中山的关系也就仅限于这一面,没有得到特别的照顾,更没有被收养。傅光培一直在武汉工作、生活,有一女儿,傅苹的祖父很可能是傅光植,如果那样的话,他甚至连孙中山的面都没见过。

  另一处是傅苹声称在1979年邓小平读了她发表在学生刊物上的文章,她因此遭到校方的关押、批评。她在书里声称,1979年10所高校文学社的代表计划在北京聚会,会议在最后一分钟被政府禁止,改由邓小平私下接见与会代表。接见时代表们人人手里拿着一册傅苹编的《红枫》杂志,邓小平问大家最近在读什么,一个代表就把《红枫》给了邓小平,然后邓小平就看到了登在上面的大胆文章。

  1979年7月,由武汉大学张桦发起,10所大学文学社团代表在北京聚会。张桦近年来写过回忆文章,接受过采访,对事情的经过叙述甚详(http://blog.voc.com.cn/blog.php? ... g&itemid=538323 )参加这次会议的有北大、人大、北师大、北京广播学院、南大、武大、吉大、杭大、中山大学、西北大学十所高校的15个人,会议在张桦家举行,官方并无干预,后来他们还去见了文艺界领导陈荒煤。与会代表并无傅苹所在的江苏师院的人,邓小平也没有接见与会代表。傅苹说邓小平接见是她听人说的,问题是除了她,有关这次会议的回忆没有别人这么说过。邓小平接见并阅读她的文章更可能也是她做的美梦。

  这次会议后,这十所高校的文学社以及后来加入的南开大学、杭州师大、贵州大学文学社共13所文学社联合出版了学生文学刊物《这一代》,只出了创刊号就被官方叫停。傅苹声称《这一代》登了她的文章。但是查《这一代》的目录(http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-279293-403821.html ),里面并无傅苹说的文章。实际上,《这一代》激怒高层的,是里面的两首诗:王家新《桥》和叶鹏《轿车从街上匆匆驶过》,与傅苹或其文学社没有关系。

  傅苹声称她主编的《红枫》杂志很出名,但是和她同时在同一个系读书并且也有自己的文学社团的程映虹教授却没有听说过这份杂志。傅苹辩解说是因为那是一份地下杂志,所以别人不知道。但是她又说其他学校的文学社代表人手一册这份“地下杂志”,难道只是在本校地下,到校外就跑地上了?

  现在已发现的傅苹回忆录的虚假不实之处已有十几处,其回忆录出版商声称这些只是小错误,以后要改正。实际上这些都是重大的、关键性的错误,如果真的都要改正的话,她那部回忆录得全盘重写,而且将变得没有那么励志。一个习惯性说谎的人,是事无巨细都忍不住要说假话的,其书中的虚假不实之处绝不止这些,也不限于只是其国内的经历造假,其在美国的经历也同样造假,以后我还会一一指出。


2013.2.15


原文地址:http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4 ... tml#bsh-3-193592866
回复

使用道具 举报

0

主题

8173

回帖

2万

积分

管理员

积分
28918
发表于 2013-9-26 21:42:29 | 显示全部楼层
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.

1.jpg
Joe Nocera

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/2 ... igilantes.html?_r=0
回复

使用道具 举报

0

主题

8173

回帖

2万

积分

管理员

积分
28918
发表于 2013-9-26 23:14:21 | 显示全部楼层
谁有权回忆文革?

乔·诺切拉 2013年07月03日

即使是现在,在事情发生近六个月后,仍有些难以理解,为何傅苹的回忆录《弯而不折》(Bend, Not Break)在一些华裔移民的社区引发了这样的愤怒情绪——在这近六个月里,亚马逊(Amazon.com)上充斥着成百上千条抨击傅苹的负面评论;有人建起了一个专门用来攻击她的网站;傅苹的朋友和同事也一直受到诋毁她的邮件的狂轰乱炸。

54岁的傅苹大约30年前从中国来到美国。1997年,她创立了一家叫做杰魔(Geomagic)的公司,最近该公司以5500万美元(约合3.37亿元人民币)的价格售出。2005年,《公司》(Inc.)杂志将她评为年度企业家。周六,傅苹将在美国图书馆协会(American Library Association)的大会上发言。


换言之,发生在傅苹身上的是一个典型成功移民的故事。你会认为这会给华裔移民带来自豪感。但相反,她却一直经受着中国人所谓的“人肉搜索”的攻击——这是一种自发的网络行动,目的是让搜索目标蒙羞。

傅苹的错误——如果你可以称之为错误的话——就是在回忆录中描写了一些她在文化大革命期间的成长经历,在那10年内,中国陷入一片疯狂。当时,身为知识分子或教师就是一种罪,这些人时常会遭到批判和惩罚(有时被杀害);数百万人被送到农村接受“再教育”;青少年成为红卫兵,行为肆无忌惮——这些都是在毛泽东的认可下进行的。读有关文化大革命的故事时,我们都不禁会联想到《蝇王》(Lord of the Flies)。

30年后,在中国几乎没人愿意深入探讨文化大革命。确切地讲,中国政府并不鼓励关于这一话题的讨论。对于那些切身经历过那段历史的人而言,它仍是个十分痛苦的话题。

最近我和傅苹聊天时,她告诉我,她原本是想写一本有关她商业经历的回忆录。但一旦开始下笔,她就意识到,要解释她现在的样子,就需要写文革时她是一个怎样的女孩。傅苹出身优越,8岁时,她被从其位于上海的家带走,送到一个很远的宿舍居住。10岁时,她被红卫兵强奸,傅苹写道。她在工厂工作,还得扶养妹妹。尽管她说她看到了残忍暴行,但她同时也写了自己接受的善意。(爆料:我现在正为出版《弯而不折》的Portfolio写一本书。)

在中国,以发起网络批判运动而出名的博主方舟子决定对傅苹发起攻击。很快,亚马逊涌现大量一星评论,谴责傅苹是个骗子。她的批评者大多是华裔移民,对她的故事大肆抨击,尽管他们找到一些真正的错误,但其中多数批评都有很大的推测性。是的,他们似乎在说,文化大革命中发生了很不好的事情,但它们不可能发生在傅苹身上。

“学校教育一定程度上被打断了,但学校还是存在的,”郝炘(Cindy Hao)颇为不屑地说道,试图驳斥傅苹提到的她在工厂工作的经历。郝炘是一名出生在中国的记者,现居西雅图,她已成为傅苹最强烈的批评者之一。“傅苹的整个故事都是编造的,”郝炘对我说。

(说明:郝炘是《纽约时报》北京分社的自由职业译员,偶尔为分社工作,她曾帮助狄雨霏[Didi Kirsten Tatlow]做过一篇相关报道。她说自己是在文章发表后才开始批评傅苹的。她现在已不再被允许为北京分社做报道。)

在和郝炘及其他批评者聊天时,你不能不想到,这里真正的问题不是傅苹的书中是否有错,而是由谁来讲述文革的故事——或者甚至是这个故事到底该不该讲出来。在哈佛大学(Harvard University)任教的文革专家罗德里克·麦克法考尔(Roderick MacFarquhar,他的中文名字叫马若德——译注)告诉我,对于任何经历过文革的人来说,那都是他们不愿想起的回忆。“如果文革期间,你是中国的一个青少年,你可能不是被打,就是在打人。不论哪一种,都是不光彩的回忆。”是的,傅苹的书中有错。但是很难理解,这些错误如何让傅苹所面对的那种极端、无情的污蔑变得合理。她真正的罪恶似乎在于,这是一个大多数中国人不愿意触碰的话题,而她令他们感到不安了。

最近几个月,郝炘试图让美国图书馆协会取消对傅苹在大会发言的邀请。在一封信中,郝炘称傅苹“不诚实,无诚信,不值得信任”。

在我看来,这听上去像极了文革期间那些经常出现的、恶劣的语言暴力。

http://cn.nytimes.com/opinion/20130703/c03nocera/
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

手机版|文革与当代史研究网

GMT+8, 2025-4-21 05:21 , Processed in 0.063543 second(s), 22 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.5

© 2001-2024 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表