From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is modern Egypt really any more continuous than China, Iraq or Pakistan? Egyptians speak and write in a different language, use different architecture, maintain different religious beliefs, and have a dramatically different world-view than Pharaonic Egypt.--WOVcenter 22:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Apart from DNA in certain citizens, and geography, modern Egypt has no links at all with it's ancient past. The culture and religion that built the pyramids was weakened by the Greeks and Romans, then annihilated by Islam in the seventh and eighth centuries AD., The most ancient continuous cultural link in Egypt would be the Coptic Christian Church that has managed to hang on from the first century to the present. You have to hand it to them though. The pharaonic culture lasted virtually unchanged for about 4000 years! AlanE 8 May 2007

The earliest known archaeological record of human culture in Ancient Egypt dates to between 13,000 and 9,000 B.C

Given that the Earth is only 6000 years old, this is not possible.19:56, 15 July 2007 (EDT) PFoster 20:41, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Is this claim actually in the bible? Then again, I thought this is Conservapedia, not the Creation wiki. So we write from a conservative perspective, but not necessarily from a Creationist perspective. Acampbell 21:06, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree. This anti-Biblical bias should be corrected. At the very least, the materialist perspective should be complemented with the Christian view. Really, this is supposed to be Conservapedia, not Oldearthpedia. Brtkrbzhnv 12:50, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

To the best of my knowledge CP doesn't have to ONLY operate under a Young Earth Creationist paradigm in the way that wikipedia exclusively acknowledges Darwinism as the "truth", but rather we try to be balanced and fairly represent the range of theories out there. I see no problem with stating, perhaps parenthetically, that the whole "13,000 BC" date is a theory put forth by those not ascribing to the Usher calculations. ShlomSaydetLibnan 00:05, 12 February 2009 (EST)

This article should be about modern Egypt as much as possible, placing ancient Egypt in a separate page. Karajou 19:28, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Egyptians are not Arabs

This article is a disgrace not only because the plight of Coptic Christians are inadequately mentioned, but also because it portrays all Egyptians as Arabs! I have already corrected the part about "Arab" identity. Egyptians are simply not Arabs! Especially Egyptian Copts. End of story. Acampbell 21:06, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Depends how one defines "Arab." Looking at it from a linguistic anthropologist's point of view, they most probably are. AliceBG 21:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Technically what you say is true, although they are usually considered a part of the "Arab world". Most of this article comes from a government website and so it is going to contain a perspective looking through a modern United States government lense - including our foreign policy choices of the last few decades and how the world is viewed. Feel free to add constructive information. Yes, the Copts are facing serious troubles, and there is certainly room for that to be added in a way that can be educational for our readers. Learn together 03:35, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Gamal Nasser, the father of the hyper-secular Arab nationalist movement that laid the foundations for Sadam Hussein's Ba'ath Party, is largely responsible for the notion that Egyptians are Arabs. As someone who has spent a great deal of time in Egypt, I can assure everybody that this is most definitely NOT the case amongst average Egyptians. Even Egyptian Muslims in Cairo and Alexandria almost never identify themselves as Arabs, and as far as Coptics go, well, have your running shoes on if you plan on asking one of them if they are ;) And in Upper Egypt (Luxor, Aswan, et al) most everybody is a Nubian. It's only out in the scant handful of oasis villages where people claim Arab (and specifically Bedouin) descent. ShlomSaydetLibnan 00:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)
OK. Modern Egypt is a mixed society. There are some Arabs in Egypt, as there were until the 1950's many Jews, Greeks etc. However modern Egyptian culture and language is very different to elsewhere in the Middle East. Egyptian Arabic is almost entirely different to Gulf Arabic, and contains huge amounts of Coptic-Egyptian loan words. Egyptian culture is also entirely different to Arab culture. The reason Egypt is seen as a part of the Arab world is it speaks for it. Egypt is the biggest cultural weight in the region, the biggest population. For a long time Cairo was the capital of the Islamic empire and so it identifies with the Arab world by virtue of a shared religion and shared literature and cultural aspects of that period. Al Azhar is THE cultural heart of the Arab world and that is in Cairo. The Citadel was the heart of the Islamic empire in one of it's most important periods, and that is in Cairo. In modern times, Egypt is the cultural gel in the Arab world. Most Arabs can understand Egyptian Arabic, much more than vice versa.
Egypt is an "Arab nation" for similar reasons to the UK being head of the Commonwealth. A mix of colonial legacies, vanished empires and quirks of history. But most Egyptians are not Arabs, even though they have picked up a generous helping of Arab culture and language along the way. However, there are many advantages for her in being an "Arab nation", regardless of technicalities.
As for Upper Egypt. Kom Ombo and Aswan are the only two cities in the region with significant Nubian populations, and they only arrived in the area in large numbers following the completion of the Aswan Dam. Most of them lived from Aswan upward before this stretch of the valley was flooded. However, Upper Egypt was, and still is, mostly Egyptian.
Incidentally, it was the Romans, upon adopting Christianity, not the Islamic conquest, that destroyed Pharaonic culture. When the Arabs arrived, the destruction was already complete.--Krysg 19:22, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Mobs in Cairo

We need to research the reasons behind the Feb. 2011 resignation of Mubarak. It would also be good to monitor the result of his stepping down. After the shah of Iran left power, things got worse there.

I see a pattern: people say a certain government "must go", but then its replacement is worse. Should we comment on this? Maybe "regime change" is a good place to start. --Ed Poor Talk 15:15, 11 February 2011 (EST)