Once again we have the situation of someone who may be thought of as representing the Anglo-Saxon culture using the story of a non-Anglo as a springboard to discuss the difference between two cultures and show in the process that he understands neither. This time it is David Pryce-Jones who writes on October 4, 2007 in National Review Online under the title Diana’s Clash of Civilization about the inquest into the death of Princess Diana. This is an inquest that Mohamed Fayed, the father of Diana’s boyfriend Dodi has wanted for a long time.
In the paragraph second to last Pryce-Jones lays out his point as he concludes the following: "Mohamed Fayed’s conspiracy theory is a revealing illustration of how someone can misinterpret British culture in the light of his very own different culture. His vision of the world sounds demented but it’s conditioned by what’s familiar to him. In their culture, what the British actually do is set up inquests and Lord Justices to deal with issues through due procedure, something unknown in Egypt." In fact, Pryce-Jones is comparing Egypt where Mohamed Fayed was born with Britain where he now lives and works.
I put in bold type four words in the above paragraph because I believe there is a typo error around there. But this does not change the meaning of what the author is trying to say and so, let’s get on with the analysis of this piece of writing.
Pryce-Jones reaches this conclusion because he says that although the record shows people who got in the way of the powerful in Egypt were sometimes murdered, there is no record of the British secret service murdering anyone. He then backpedals a little and admits he knows of two attempts that were stopped by a higher authority. But he does not come right out and say he is absolutely certain the British secret service is not keeping secret an operation like say, the American attempt to murder Cuba’s Castro which failed or the actual murder of Chile’s Allende.
Still, the writer insists that to believe the British would do such a thing is a concept so far out, it is rather comic. It seems this man Pryce-Jones did not read his own piece after he wrote it because at the beginning of it he says this: "Lord Justice Scott Baker in charge of the inquest opened proceedings by saying that many members of the public are concerned that something sinister may have caused the collision, and suspicion is now to be either dispelled or substantiated."
Comic? Who is Pryce-Jones laughing at? Mohamed Fayed? Lord Justice Scott Baker or the many members of the British public who are concerned that something sinister may have caused the collision and are suspicious?
Still, the man wants to show how much he understands his own culture by first attacking someone else’s understanding of it then describing his own understanding of it. And so he writes the following: "Mohamed Fayed’s conspiracy theory is a revealing illustration of how someone can misinterpret British culture … what the British actually do is set up inquests and Lord Justices to deal with issues through due procedure."
It is unbelievable that a published author can be so backward. Following due procedure is what Mohamed Fayed has been doing for ten years. And what Pryce-Jones is describing as being what the British do is what Fayed has done. So where did the man go wrong when he did what he did, when he thought like "many members of the [British] public" or when he pursued the proper British procedure? David Pryce-Jones is not saying.
What is wrong is not with Mohamed Fayed but with a mediocre thinker called David Pryce-Jones who does not understand his own culture, is ignorant of the Egyptian culture and has no clue as to its legal set-up or procedure. If this man had learned about the Arabs, their language and their culture, and if he had acquired a knowledge about them equal to a tiny fraction what Mohamed Fayed knows about the British language and culture, he would not have made a fool of himself and be an embarrassment to his people and his profession.
Not only is this man devoid of the knowledge and the intellect to write about a subject that is obviously far above his head, he does not even suspect he is this ignorant and so he goes on to confidently speculate the following:
[If Diana and Dodi] had settled down together the whole Establishment would have gasped with relief at an example of a Muslim at last integrating."
If Pryce-Jones could get away saying that Mohamed Fayed had not fully integrated in British society, he could not get away saying that Dodi had not integrated or that he needed to marry a Princess to be integrated.
Pryce-Jones goes on to opine: "Fayed’s insistence that the mother of the future King couldn’t be allowed to marry a Muslim is evidence of the victim complex that runs through Islam - the poor man is simply not equipped to understand the British.
No one is poorer than Pryce-Jones for pretending he has the expertise on Islam to accuse it of having a victim complex. And let’s be honest, the writer is too small to have tackled this job but you cannot blame him for trying. If anyone is to blame, it is the editors who are as poor, who did not read what they were publishing, who red the article but did not care or who treated their readers with contempt.