Broken Fact: Fu Ping's Family Tie with Dr. Sun Yat-sen

As an autobiography, Bend, Not Break is remarkably sketchy on Fu Ping's family background. There are no names to be found, either for her two sets of parents or her siblings and relatives, except for her younger sister Fu Hong. But nevertheless, the only significant mention of her ancestry was found to contain a lie.

The Original Story
Near the end of the book, almost in casual passing, Fu Ping stated on Page 261:

As for Nanjing Father, he had been born into a political family. My great-grandfather had been killed during the uprising led by Sun Yat-sen, the founding father of modern China. Dr. Sun had raised my grandfather and grand-uncle as his own sons. 

She goes on to explain that her grandfather and his family fled to Taiwan around 1949 but her father managed to run away and stayed in mainland.

The Changed Story
Tania Branigan and Ed Pilkington of The Guardian were the first to notice this little passage and consulted an expert on Sun Yat-sen. They reported:

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. 

So Fu Ping quickly changed her story from "Dr Sun raised my grandfather and grand-uncle as his own sons" to "Sun was attentive towards them" while citing her mother as the source.

The Debunking
Although Fu Ping did not mention any names in her book or to The Guardian, she appears to have disclosed them in comments on John Kennedy's blog. If the comment is to be believed, her great grandfather is Fu Cixian (傅慈祥) who indeed died in an uprising in 1900. It is also true that Fu Cixian had two sons, Fu Guangpei (傅光培) and Fu Guangzhi (傅光植). Fu Ping claimed that Fu Guangzhi is her grandfather.

Fang Zhouzi has discovered an old article written by Fu Guangpei in memory of Fu Cixian, in which Fu Guangpei remembers when he met Sun Yat-sen for the first time in 1912, 11 years after the death of Fu Cixian. Sun did not know him but asked for his age and was generally nice to him as an elder. Fu Guangzhi was not mentioned in that article. It is likely that Fu Guangzhi, Fu Ping's grandfather, had never met Sun Yet-sen in person:

一九一二年四月,孙中山先生交卸临时大总统职后,莅临首义之区视察,那时我才十六岁。先父同学刘道仁引我去见孙先生,我问刘怎样称呼? 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,叫孙伯伯好了。孙先生问了我的年齡后,嘱我好好读书,继承父志。

Since this is about all Fu Guangpei had to say on his relation with Sun Yet-sen, it is impossible to conclude that the latter had been "attentive towards" the brothers at all, not to mention raising them as his own sons.

Meanwhile, Fu Cixian's widow did receive some financial help, but it was from his former classmate, not Sun Yet-sen:

到癸卯(一九〇三年)那年,我父同学盟友刘道仁到潜江县来找我们,说我们是学生家属已经大赦了。其时我的曾祖母和我的哥哥、姐姐都在逃难中死了,我的母亲带着我和弟弟光植,什么也没有… 刘道仁和吴禄贞给我们母子凑了五百块钱,才得以生活下去。

By the way, according to other documents discovered by Cindy Hao, Fu Guangzhi had two sons by the names of Fu Lin (傅林) and Fu Li (傅里), respectively. On the other hand, the name of Fu Ping's father is Fu Daoli (傅道里). It's not clear whether Fu Daoli was a variation of the name Fu Li.

Fu Daoli was born in 1926 and passed away in February, 2007. Fu Ping's mother lives with Fu Ping to this day. Maybe Fu Ping could ask her to clarify a little more on Sun Yet-sen's attentiveness to her grandfather?

Fang Zhouzi: Once Again on Fu Ping's Lies and Quibble

The following post was published by Fang Zhouzi on his blog on February 15, 2013. This one is a follow up on the report by The Guardian and provides more detailed background information on the issues of Fu Ping's family history and the student journal incident in 1979:

　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/blogs/article/1149921/some-vindication-ping-fu-and-malicious-chinese-cyber-trolls?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）。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荣祥的儿子，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?do=showone&type=blog&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。

The Guardian: Ping Fu's Childhood Tales of China's Cultural Revolution Spark Controversy

Tania Branigan and Ed Pilkington, who had previously reported doubts on Fu Ping's story, published another report on The Guardian on February 13, 2013. This was the first media report on the affair in which the reporters actually sought out experts to exam, and almost unanimously refute, several aspects of the story, including her claimed family history, her episode with student magazine, and so on.

It's also worth noting that Professor Perry Link, who was quoted in this story, is still banned from visiting China by the government there for his pro-democracy involvement decades ago. So, he could be hardly grouped into the conspiracy theory of a Chinese government sponsored "smear campaign."

Top US software entrepreneur faces new contradiction claims over rags-to-riches memoir of personal torment in 60s China 

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: "Ping 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."