Egypt’s Identity Crisis
With Egypt’s “July Revolution” of 1952, for the first time in millennia, Egyptians were able to boast that a native-born Egyptian, Gamal Abdel Nasser, would govern their nation: Ever since the overthrow of its last native pharaoh nearly 2,500 years ago, Egypt had been ruled by a host of foreign invaders — Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and Brits, to name a few. After 1952, however, Egypt, it was believed, would finally be Egyptian.
Yet, though Nasser was Egyptian, the spirit of the times that brought him to power was Arab — Arab nationalism, or “pan-Arabism” — the theory that all Arabic-speaking peoples, from Morocco to Iraq, should unify. (Along with Nasser, the tide of pan-Arabism also brought to power Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, Syria’s Hafez Assad, and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.)
The revolution significantly Arabized Egypt. That Egypt’s official name became the Arab Republic of Egypt — as opposed to simply the Republic of Egypt — speaks for itself. Whereas before 1952, one could have spoken of a distinctly “Egyptian” character and identity, after it, this identity gave way to an Arab identity. From there, it was a short push to an Islamic identity. Or, as Egyptologist Wassim al-Sissy recently put it, the revolution “erased the Egyptian character, which had been known for its tolerance, love, freedom, and so on. The revolution created a nation of slaves.”
My Egyptian-born parents, who personally lived through the 1952 revolution before immigrating to America, often reminisced on this change. Growing up I used to hear how pre-revolution Egypt was absolutely nothing like it is now. According to them, because it was under British rule, it was freer and more secular; hardly any women wore the hijab; Alexandria was something of a “mini-Europe.” Indeed, if you look at pictures taken in 1940s Egypt and compare them to pictures from today, you might think the former were taken in Europe, the latter in Arabia.
In short, Egyptians saw themselves first and foremost as Egyptians. Certainly no Egyptians would have referred to themselves as “Arabs” — a word back then that connoted “lowly bedouins” to Egyptian ears. (After all, for Egyptians to think of themselves as “Arabs,” because their first language is Arabic, is as logical as American blacks thinking of themselves as “English,” because their first language is English.) In fact, in the decades preceding the revolution, there was a Pharaonist movement, led by influential thinkers like Taha Hussein, which sought to define and promote a distinctly Egyptian character.
I think it is fair to say that those Egyptians aware of and who interact with the world outside of Egypt want to be accepted for who they are as Egyptians and do not seek approval for its own sake.
In this sense, how Egyptians see themselves in relation to outsiders could be moved by considerations of how we deal with them in terms of demonizing them or considering them as potential friends.
For example, if we in the West dislike the Egyptian obsession with Israel, we are more likely to have an influence in this regard by remaining friends rather than taking a moral position and dismissing them or making them feel that to be an Egyptian is to be a pariah.
That “dead weight of foreign elements” could just as easily be the United States creating yet another enemy; I’m not sure how many friends I would have if I presumed to tell them what kind of clothes to wear. When push comes to shove then let’s take sides but for now let’s stand by our friends and tell them our opinion rather than preach it at them. I for one tell my Egyptian friends to stop thinking of Israel in the way they do but I can’t say that if we’re not on speaking terms.
By the way I think Egyptians actually do worship cats.
And the Cats have never forgotten this.
Raybo’ here sees himself as a Neophoenecian, doubtless.
Happy daze.
I think there is probably a new Gamal Abdel Nasser waiting in the wings in Egypt. The army will NOT allow its influence to diminish in that country. Whoever obtains power there will have the support of the army because he will be PAYING a lot of money to the army to maintain that support. The only way an Islamist will take over is if there is a civil war in the country and the army is torn apart. But then you may get a long, drawn out, and bloody conflict where an iron dictator steps in and stamps down the Islamist threat. In short, another militant nationalist like Nasser. And even if some other civilian is elected into office, he’s going to need the support of the army to stay there. If not, there still will be another Nasser waiting in the wings to take over.
You might be right about another Nasser. Dont forget one thing, Nasser was extremely anti-western. It was under Nasser that the communists first got a foothold in the middle east. Egypt and Syria also for a time were a united country called the United Arab republic. Another Nassar might not be an Islamisist, but he might be like the taliban, who would be willing to give enough autonomy to Islamic radicals that amke them a de facto Islamic state.
Egypt was a massively wealthy country for thousands of years. In these times wealth was determined not only with gold, silver and gems, but with grain.
The grain production of Egypt is fabled, with flooding of the Nile providing incredible fertile soils for its harvest. Much of the grains went to beer production, Egypt paid its wages in Allotments of Beer in many cases.
Having massive silos to store its grain, there was much lost to rats, mice, and other vermin. Cats were brought in to hunt and maintain control of the rat population, safely guarding the store of grains for the winter and its all important production of Beer. The difference between enough grain and a shortage, was the excellent hunting skills of Cats
This is the root of cat veneration in Egypt.
Arabs are not the original Egyptians. They tried to take down the pyramids when they conquered the country. Like the Taliban and the Buddhas of Bamiyam, Jihadis are always usurpers and destroyers of culture.
Present day Egyptians are not Arabs.
They only speak Arabic, worship allah and once were part of the United Arab Republic. If it walks and talks like a duck …
their official State title is: The Arab Republic of Egypt,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt
You’re very misinformed.
There’s more to ethnicity than race, isn’t there? I don’t think King Tut would recognize these people. At the end of the day, it’s about culture and behavior.
Actually I’m not. Egyptians are comprised of everyone from the blackest black to the whitest white with the most somewhere in between.
A people comprised of Arab, Turkish, Greek, Albanian, Nubian, Roman, and lord knows what other blood are hardly ‘Arabs’ no matter how they fancy themselves or name their country. Was Anwar Sadat an Arab?
During the worst of the Darfur crisis it was portrayed in the U.S. as Arabs of north Sudan slaughtering blacks in the south and west. In fact it was black folks against other black folks. When some black Americans got hold of this false info they started agitating until they realized what was up.
Robert, please either stop lying or do some reading before expressing opinions. Northern Sudan is mostly inhabited by muslims, South Sudan are Chirstians and tribal religious groups. This North/South Sudan issue has been a religious war (genocide actually) all along that the pro-islam state-run US propaganda machine (so-called “press”) has hidden from the American public as a “religion-neutral, North-South conflict”. And you’re part of that coverup.
What an ignorant statement; sounds like it’s coming out of a US “intelligence” agency.
Like the one who stated that the “Muslim Bortherhood” is a secular org.
Boy, what has America become.
Islamists view all history prior to the founding of Islam as irrelevant. This is why there is such a dismissive attitude towards Egypt’s rich history and it’s archaeological treasures. The main reason why these ancient monuments are allowed to survive is because of the tourist dollars they generate. And speaking of dollars, the Suez Canal is in no danger should it come under the control of the Brotherhood. They are not about to jeopardize that huge revenue producer.
The Taliban destroyed the oldest statue of Buddha when they took over in Afghanistan. I wouldnt put it past the Muslim Bruths Hoods to destroy the pyramids, the King Tut and King Ramses exhibits, etc. Moslems always want to destroy culture that was there before they arrived.
Egypt and nations in the crosshairs of the fundamentalists must dislodge from the OIC because corruption of its Constitution came after August 1990 when the Cairo Declaration was signed and agreed upon by 45 OIC nations – in direct conflict with the UNDHR ratified 2 years earlier.
Article 25 of the CD states “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration” and Article 24 “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah”. The remaining 23 is academic.
Maybe this generation of Egyptians will. Arabs have tried hitching their stars to pan-Arabism or Arab Nationalism or whatever you call it. They’ve tried hating on Israel and America as a solution. They’ve tried that ol’ time (Islamist) religion. Nothing has worked. It’s possible they’ve figured out that they have to work on their own country, their own government, their own economy, their own culture, if they really want progress. Tossing out the Mubarak regime was a step in the right direction. I’m hoping the military is on board with the protesters rather than just protecting its own interests. Egyptians don’t need another thirty years of “emergency” martial law.
Well, the current (90% that is) inhabitants of the land called “Egypt” aren’t “Egyptians” they’re arabs and islamists, with the rest 10% remnants of European/African Christians.
So, you want them to be something they aren’t? Get real.
That’s the same with the current Albanian, Bulgarian and Slavic inhabitants of what used to be the northern section (of the old 5th and 4th century BC) kingdom of Macedonia, now referred to as FYROM, insisting (and making a fool of themselves internationally) on calling themselves “Macedonians.” By doing so, they’re insulting all their neighbors (Greece to the South, Albania to the West and Bulgaria to the East), and as a result they’re experiencing all sorts of additional troubles on top of their on going miserable economic conditions.
These phony names and identities are the source of social unrest; changing one’s identity, by pretending they are something they aren’t, itself leads to social disorientation and social upheaval and certainly it doesn’t get rid of the real economic, social and political problems these countries face.
In the case of “Egypt” we should recongnize the “Egyptians” for what they really are, arabs and islamists, face the truth and confront them as such without us be delusional or asking them to be phony pretenders. It’s unwise for us to hope that by them doing so, we and they will solve their multiple and deep rooted problems.
This talk of identity, democracy, and freedom in Egypt is all very well but the real problems facing Egypt are high food prices and massive unemployment.
Whatever form of Egyptian government emerges and whoever leads it will still have to face the same problems that the Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak had to deal with and failed.
Egypt is deeply in debt and cannot continue to massively subsidize the nation’s food, there is not enough oil or Suez Canal revenue for that.
The vast majority of Egyptians are under the age of twenty five, badly educated, and facing a lifetime of unemployment and poverty.
The Egyptian government replacing the Mubarak regime will be facing the unachievable expectations of those demonstrators who helped overthrow Mubarak. The new government will not be able to lower food prices nor will it be able to find jobs for the unemployed.
The instability in Egypt sure to come over the next few months as a result of the military’s or the new government’s failure to successfully address the core issues of food and employment could lead to wrecking the entire Middle East.
Indeed! This is exactly what concerns me as well. Item 1: Food must be reasonably priced. Good luck with that. Item 2: The country needs to be redeveloped in to something more than it is right now. They could become a solar energy provider to other parts of Middle East. They could return to farming. They could get busy with transportation and other such endeavors, not just with the Suez Canal, but also rail and telecommunications.
There are many opportunities for the Egyptians to pursue. Instead, they languish in poverty waiting, Insh’alla, for something to happen.
Good luck with that.
Thousands of years of culture isn’t overturned in 15 minutes.
Thousands of years of culture is turned over in but one generation. The mistake historians will discuss is that the US set up dictators that secured their power by insuring that the alternative to them would be worse, rather than moving the country toward enlightenment and tolerance.
The mistake historians will discuss is that the US set up dictators that secured their power by insuring that the alternative to them would be worse, rather than moving the country toward enlightenment and tolerance.
Set up?
Did the US “set up” Nasser? No, his “revolution” was home grown.
Did the US “set up” Sadat? No, he took power when Nasser died.
Did the US “set up” Mubarak? No, he took power when Sadat was killed.
Look around the Middle East, and you will see dictators. Some are enemies of the US, such as Assad Junior. Some are “friends” of the US.
Before Nasser, photos of Egypt do show a more comospolitan society in the cities. The same can be said for Afghanistan where old photos show co-ed university classes and western clothes for many men and women. Whatever Egypt was in the past or is now, that is important only because it affects the answer to the question – ‘what will Egypt become?’.
As far as I know there is just one example of a country suffering first an elected communist government, then a brutal military government and then replacing military rule with a vibrant free market economy and genuine political freedom. That is Chile, which from 1987 slowly moved from the military rule and then power behind the throne of General Pinochet to today’s free democratic country. Currently the Heritage Foundation ranks Chile eleventh on the economic freedom scale, just two notches below The USA which is currently ranked ninth.
The cultural, economic and political traditions of Chile are naturally different from Egypt. One example is that Egypt’s communist Nasser took power through a coup, Chile’s Allende was elected.
What are the chances of Egypt following a similar path to Chile?
Egypt’s future look’s very questionable.
I can not see why we should ask or expect the muslims of Egypt to remember that they are Egyptians first and foremost. This has not been possible for Europe to do. Europe has been on the road of denying their hertigage and identity for quite some time now.
Why would we expect people of less scientific advancement to do so.
What do the Egyptian Muslims want? They have an enormous enthusiasm to be ruled by Islamic sharia law. (I don’t agree with Caroline Glick that our leaders are clueless! US leaders know EXACTLY what they are doing).
http://www.jpost.com
Our World: Clueless in Washington
By CAROLINE B. GLICK
02/01/2011
…However, the character of the protesters is not liberal.
Indeed, their character is a bigger problem than the character of the regime they seek to overthrow.
According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.
Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=206121
The alarming problem for America and other Western nations who are being heavily colonized by Muslim immigrants is that a large percent of Muslims want extremely cruel Islamic sharia law implemented in their host countries.
Were it not for the border with Israel, I would suggest that we allow these groups to take over and run the nation in to the ground. That would teach them a lesson. Of course it might take a generation or three before it happens and they’d export their misery to other nations. So, no, we can’t leave them alone.
Still, while I agree with Mr. Ibrahim that a pan-Egyptian movement would be nice, I have doubts that anyone could pull this off. Egypt needs a miracle to come out of this in any better shape than before. I don’t have any idea who might make this miracle happen or how it might be brought about.
But then, the Internet has surprised us before. Perhaps a movement of cell-phones…
To ask an entire nation to change its ethnic identity is a rather tall order.
But this article does, at least, spring from the realization that the situation in the Middle East is now utterly different.
An Israeli analyst recently wrote a remarkably frank account of what triggered the fall of Mubarak. He attributes it to decades of watching Mubarak’s government collude in the long series of betrayals of the Palestinians. As he says, Arabs cannot bear seeing a poor relation humiliated over and over, as the Palestinians have been.
By the way, Egyptians do see themselves as Arabs, nor are they likely to cease doing so to please a PJM columnist.
Here, then, is an honest Israeli’s comment on Mubarak’s fall:
“I have reflected many times – out loud – how I would feel if I were a 15 year-old boy in Alexandria, Amman or Aleppo, seeing my leaders behave like abject slaves of the Americans and the Israelis, while oppressing and despoiling their own subjects. At that age, I myself joined a terrorist organization. Why would an Arab boy be different?
A dictator may be tolerated when he reflects national dignity. But a dictator who expresses national shame is a tree without roots – any strong wind can blow him over.”
This needs to be translated into Arabic and given maximal coverage in the Egyptian media. Reassertion of Egyptian identity of which you speak is THE crucial antidote to Ikhwan ideology, the Pharaonist movement a credible inspiration for a political party, and the single best hope for a free and liberal democracy to take root. However as we all know, time is short. Please, please take this to the next level!
What an incredibly stupid article.
Would you ask Israelis to separate themselves from Judaism?
What an incredibly stupid Comment. What have you read of the Pharaonist movement and do you see the value of separating Egyptian identity from Arab nationalism? And what exactly is your theory about the analogy with Israel and Judaism?
We wish you the best of luck with that, because the alternative is The Three Conjectures by Richard Fernandes:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html
As far as I know there is just one example of a country suffering first an elected communist government, then a brutal military government and then replacing military rule with a vibrant free market economy and genuine political freedom. That is Chile, which from 1987 slowly moved from the military rule and then power behind the throne of General Pinochet to today’s free democratic country.
A few mistakes here. First it wasn’t an elected gpvernmant. Allende got 36% of the vote ( by coincidence just the same than Hitler) against 34% to the right and 30% t the center right. And the citizens weren’t asked about their opinion of by whom they wanted to be ruled. By affinity the center right would have allied itself with the right but tradition in Chili was that reprentaives of the party in third poition would vote for the candidate. But the center right distrusted Allende and his allies so they make it sign an agrement to respect certin limits uin addition of the traditional oath of respecting the Constiution and the Law. Once in power Allende not only vilated thuis agreement but the Constitution too all while Cuban “counselors” and Cuban weapons were introduced in Chile hoping to create a force who would be able to defeat the Chilean Army not to mention that some opponents were murdered. At one point the violations of the Constitution were so grave that the legislative called to the Army. At one point in front of the catastrophic economic situation, the discovery of weapon smuggling from Cuba ordered by the governement and at least one aassassination attempt against his head of staff (Pinochet) or some other very highly ranked officer the Army gave a coup. I also disagree about the brutal dictatorship: according to socialist sources the total death count was three thousand most of them either killed while opposing armed resistance to the Army or executed after being taken weapon in hand. This the number of purely political (ie not for armed opposition) victims must be inferior to one thousand that means an avergaer of less than 60
As far as I know there is just one example of a country suffering first an elected communist government, then a brutal military government and then replacing military rule with a vibrant free market economy and genuine political freedom. That is Chile, which from 1987 slowly moved from the military rule and then power behind the throne of General Pinochet to today’s free democratic country.
A few mistakes here. First it wasn’t an elected gpverneant. Allende got 36% of the vote ( by coincidence just the same percentage than Hitler) against 34% to the right and 30% to the center right. And the citizens weren’t asked about their opinion of by whom they wanted to be ruled. Decision was taken above their heads by the parties. By affinity the center right would have allied itself with the right but tradition in Chili was that reprentaives of the party in third poition would vote for the candidate. However the center right distrusted Allende and his allies so they make it sign an agreement to respect certain limits (one of them not trying to take over the Army) in addition of the traditional oath of respecting the Constitution and the Law. Once in power Allende not only violated most of the terms of this agreement but the Constitution, decisions ogf Justice and step upon the poweers of the legislature (in other owrds he no longer was legitimate) too all while Cuban “counselors” and Cuban weapons were introduced in Chile hoping to create a force who would be able to defeat the Chilean Army not to mention that some opponents were murdered. At one point the violations of the Constitution were so grave that the legislative called to the Army. At one point in front of the catastrophic economic situation, the discovery of weapon smuggling from Cuba ordered by the governement and at least one aassassination attempt against his head of staff (Pinochet) or some other very highly ranked officer the Army gave a coup. I also disagree about the brutal dictatorship: according to socialist sources the total death count was three thousand most of them either killed while opposing armed resistance to the Army or executed after being taken weapon in hand. This the number of purely political (ie not for armed opposition) victims must be inferior to one thousand that means an avergaer of less than 60 a year. By Stalin, Saddam Hussein or Castro’s standards a pitifully low number. And Pinochet abandonned power voluntarily all while letting behind him a Constitution who sets a 2 round electoral system ie no longer lets citizens at the mercy of what parties decide above their heads.
Also Chili’s case is not unique: in Spain you had a similar scenario: a “socialist” government (but don’t let the “socialist” word confound you the Spanish socialist leaders made well clear that once in power they wouldn’t relinquish it so they were more like a Communist Party without the subordination to Moscow) gets elected in dubious circumstances (ballot stealing in those places where they were going to lose and threats of physical violence made they was never a realiable couint of the votes), proceeds to run the economy unto the ground all while murdering opponentes (in a much larger scale than in Chile). At one point the Army gave a coup (this was both foreseen and initially welcomed by the government as it would allow it to destroy the opposition once and for all). In the case of Spain however the coup failed and followed civil war where both sides perpetratted massacres but where contraily to popular legend the Republicans surpassed their opponents in the savagery and sadism of their crimes. Also, while there were many people who were executed in the civil war or in its immediate aftermath the number of political capuital executions in Franquist Spain fell to remarkably low levels (in the sistries it must heve been under 10 a year, most of them for terrorism). For the nupber of political prisonners it was in the low hundreds, terrorists included. Unlike in Chile the dictaor refused to relinquish power but it was the modertate elements of its regime who voulantarily organized the returb to democracy. It wasn’t forced by internazl or external pressure (there was some of it but far less than enough for toppling the regime). Unlike Chile however the new Constitution was ill-born, set out a mediocre democracy and also the commitement of Spanish socialists to democracy is far less sincere than in Chili’s case (a few days ago they were careessing the possibility of illegalizing the main opposition party). Abit like if the Democrts illegalized the Republicans in the United States.
The United States is headed for an ‘identity crisis’ too, under the dictatorship of the Great Obama.
Is there anybody that does not believe that a revolution in America would be black and white?
You mean a race war? I suppose there are enough fools around to do that, but I’m as white as they come and I’d be delighted to fight for Obama against people like you.
Shef Rogers,
The muslims don’t seem to think it is anything difficult for the people of western lands to change their idenity for them?
As a matter of fact, the muslims insist on it very loudly.
And what’s wrong with worshiping cats?
Democracy is not a panacea for the world’s ills – not when the “demographic” in question (ie, the mob) murders, rapes and destroys to gain their so-called freedom. They are slaves to evil and will remain so even if given the right to vote for something better.
What will oil cost when the Suez is in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood? Oh, I forgot, that’s a “largly secular” organization…
As long as there are not enough Egyptians to go along with this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HXX2fO8pM4 then Egypt needs to have its affairs run by a preparatory regime, until there are enough Egyptians who accept these demands to have the upper hand in Egypt.
Otherwise, whom is kidding whom?