No. They are claiming to be egyptian before arabs. Again, there is no doubt that the native egyptians have been arabized, again I will repeat I do not dispute that,, again. If they want to identify with being egyptian you are not in a position to contradict them. Its their choice to value the heritage of their ancient history.
It's like the english claiming to be english before being germanic. It's not very surprising. If I choose to claim I am from Ireland and not Eire, it doesn't make me english. Another thing is since 1066 the english language is vastly different now than it was then. Does that mean modern english people were displaced 800 years ago?? lol your argument is off.
It doesn't take an expert to figure out your racist anti turk and muslim agenda which is clouding your opinion.
HUH?
If you can learn to make sense here, you just might have something coherent to say.
Right when you're proven wrong, you stoop to insulting and attacking me? Obviously when refuted, you feel the need to get on "daft mode" and spew out insults to make up for your inadequacies.
You know what the funny thing is? Your blatant disregard for actual objective facts and so that is a poorly developed argument, here's why:
1) Eire is synonmous with IRELAND, genius. LOL Do you see what's wrong with that? Those two are SYNONMOUS and therefore NOT comparable to what the topic is. Eire, Bonba, Ireland are all SYNONMS to connotate the SAME land: Ireland. It doesn't matter which synonm you use. Do you see the difference? It's entirely ridiculous to try to equate that to a totally different part of the world (this case egypt)
WHAT DOES THAT have to do with being "English?" LOL
2) What you WANT TO CLAIM TO BE = very different from WHAT THE REALITY IS. If I am Greek (let's say) and I want to be "considered" Japanese, that does NOT change my DNA or actual ethnogenesis and heritage, understand? If that is the case, you essentially saying that the egpytians today are nothing more than poseur wannabes, based on your standards.
3) The English language has not "changed" substantially the way you want to insist on because English comes from Frisian which is a Germanic language. All that occurred during 1066 A.D. was that you now MODIFIED your language to incorporate FRENCH words. Either way, they're from the same repetoire.
You're saying that Arabic and the language of the ancient egpytians is comparably the SAME just because your "friend" WANTS TO BE SEEN that way? That's an asinine and immature mentality.
4) If there's no "despute" then why are you hampering me or any one else for refuting you? Why are you clinging to that very false notion and constantly keep yammering about their "identity?" If there's no doubt, and you just want continue to spew their hogwash (be it turk or muslim or egpytian), then do it else where. This is a History forum, not your myspace venting blog.
"If they want to identify with being egyptian you are not in a position to contradict them. Its their choice to value the heritage of their ancient history."
No, wrong.
CORRECTION: if we're going to be CORRECT we have to speak OBJECTIVELY, not suddenly PAINT their subjective nationalistic agenda as "acceptable" just because THEY WANT TO. It's obvious that you are PROMOTING their falsity. So it all comes down to what you want: do you want to be POLITICALLY CORRECT or ACTUALLY correct? Do you understand that at least?
