Let’s start simple. Copts are a Northeast African Indigenous group with a primary origin within the borders of the modern Egyptian state, a distinction they share with Nubians (half of whom’s ancestral land is now within Egypt). The majority of Copts have been Christians since before the year 537 AD, when the last Egyptian pagan temple closed. Because Copts have a seperate religious identity to other groups that is integral to the majority of Copts, and tend to be endogamous, Copts are often described as an ethno-religion. Historically, most Copts spoke Coptic, which, due to Arabization, is now primarily a liturgical language and object of linguistic study due to its proximity to Ancient Egyptian languages. Coptic identity formed under the pressure of empire, much like other Indigenous groups, such as the Metis and Lumbee peoples.
It must be clarified, due to an unusual claim I have seen staring that Copts are more Greek than Egyptian (and correspondingly, that somehow Arabized Egyptians have more “native blood”, a claim making no temporal sense); while I compare Copts to the Metis and Lumbee peoples because it formed as a unique identity under an empire suppressing and denigrating Egypt, it is not accurate to claim that this was a case of Native Egyptians and Greeks (or Romans) having relations and creating a mixed population. Coptic as a language has a Greek influence because at the time Coptic coalesced, Greek was a language strongly associated with education, a common lingua franca, and in Egypt, had been the language of learning and power for centuries. While it would not matter to me if Copts were such a mixed population, they simply aren’t, according to current avaliable evidence. During the Ptolemaic era, evidence suggests Greeks and Native Egyptians possessed a decent amount of mutual animosity. Relations did not improve under Rome, which privileged Greeks in favor of Native Egyptians, though not to the degree they previously enjoyed. Some marriages and relationships certainly happened, but they were most likely uncommon and did not influence the entire ethnic group. This claim cannot be made on the basis of religion either; Copts adopted Christianity before it was popular among Greeks or Romans, though Copts were not fully Christianized as a culture until 537 AD. In fact, a great deal of the oppression Copts faced from Rome prior to its own adoption of Christianity was partially based on Christianity, alongside the pre-existing Roman oppression of Egyptians in general. The Coptic calender begins its counting of years from “the year of the martyrs”- a year in which a Roman emperor killed a great deal of Christians, many among them of Egyptian origin. Some mixture (even though most have been endogamous in the past several centuries) certainly exists among Copts, of both an ancient and recent variety; I am mixed race, and I have met several other Copts who are mixed race. No shame (or abuse from others!) should exist in that fact. The similarity is, under the introduction of new cultural groups and political pressures, pre-existing groups responded, and formed new cultures as their response, influenced by these factors.
The matter of how genetically similar Copts are to Non-Black Muslim Egyptians is utterly irrelevant to me, though population genetic studies are not without merit. I simply find they are utterly misused by laypeople, and not relevant in matters of social construction, like culture and ethnicity. At no point in history has a Copt been asked to spit in a tube so someone can decide to beat him or not. He is identified by his name, his tattoos, village, ghiyar, and so on. The only study I’ve seen that interests me came from Sudan; a broad and brief look at several Sudanese ethnic groups, and even this is only a mild interest.
Similarly, “most Egyptians have Coptic heritage/Copt just means Egyptian, so I’m basically a Copt, there’s no difference between Copts and me” does not move me as an argument. For one, it is not how Copts measure Coptic-ness, it is hyperdescent blood quantum nonsense imported from the Americas. To that last point: it is also very similar to what Mestizos say to Indigenous groups throughout Latin America, which I know to be nonsense. Further, in that case, and in this one, it is primarily often used as a silencing tactic. It is said in response to Copts recounting histories of suffering, genocide, and to stifle calls for language revitalization. The identification with Coptic-ness by those who push this rhetoric is not genuine- they do not align with the interests of the Copts they speak to. They seek to make the Copts they speak to identify with their interests, agree with them, and shut up. The desire is not to materially change themselves- to de-Arabize- but to remain static, and force Copts into the stasis of an Arabophone Muslim status quo. Further these people never prove or concretely state their family ties to Coptic culture. They assume they must have these ties because of Egyptian xenophobia, which makes them cruel towards even Arab “foreigners” at times, and it disgusts them to think anyone is implying they are “foreign”- more precisely, “not really Egyptian” is the phrasing they’d use. To them, only one group can not be “foreign”. This makes Copts- the only Indigenous Egyptian group they cannot easily claim is “foreign” under their twisted logic- a threat, and one to be consumed. It must be assumed they have sufficient Coptic ancestry for them to not turn their xenophobia inwards.
The writer, having said this, must be clear: I have no interest in blood purity, nor do I think reconnection is impossible! Blood purity, or quantum, has never, to my knowledge, been used by Copts. To the Arabized: if you wish it, come home! The path is rocky, and not all may be welcoming, but I beseech you: fix your eyes to the light and come home! Just don’t spit in someone’s face and call it a homecoming. I have heard scattered whispers, here and there, of such homecomings.
The path of homecoming must be kept open for a very important reason; the epidemic of kidnapping Coptic girls. When we are lucky, we get them back, but we are often unlucky. The girls who do not get rescued have children; these children are of direct Coptic descent, but they will be Arabized. If any find out who they are, we cannot turn them away when they come to ask questions.
Some may ask, alright then little moth, what makes a Copt when you speak of disconnect? How do you determine an Arabized Egyptian of Coptic heritage from an Egyptian without any? First: one Coptic ancestor. One, which can be proven (from others saying something as simple as “this person was Egyptian and a Christian” can work), is the minimum to me. Alternatively: a decent record one’s family, or village was Coptic, and that one’s ancestors resided in that village when it was Coptic. Again: I have no interest in blood purity, this is about proving a connection exists. Second: an alliance to Coptic culture and/or interests. I do not mean “politics I agree with”. I disagree with most Copts on several issues. A basic disagreement among Copts is whether we are primarily a church or a nation; I am of the latter (Dr. Boles has named this divide Shlilist vs Shlolist). I mean the person materially aligns themself as such that others identify them as a Copt without being told. This may be through learning Coptic and agitating for its transmission and protection, as this is a major issue for many. It may mean studying Coptic art, or history. It may mean becoming an activist or journalist, highlighting issues of kidnapping, eviction, assault, and so on. It may mean joining the Coptic church, as one’s ancestors probably belonged to it themselves. These two elements, as of current, are all I deem necessary. Can you name your link and are you willing to actually be identified as a Copt by others (which often, in my experience, involves insults, disrespect, and may lead to violence)? Are you willing to shed the privileges Arabization gives you in the so-called Arab world? Will you eat at our table- a splintery, rickety table it is- instead of claiming its already yours, and the same as the others?
Another reason we should not fall to ideas of blood quantum is because it is common among non-Black Indigenous nations to exclude those among them for being Black, and Egyptian society overall (Arab, Arabized, Copt, etc) is harsh and cruel to Black Africans, and denies Nubians their Indigenity by associating Blackness as outsider and foreign, as well as seeing it as contagious and threatening. This is disrespectful and immoral to do on its own; it also harms Copts for two reasons: 1) as before, some Copts are mixed race, specifically with a Black parent (amd again, I know some personally), and 2) Nubians are the second largest Indigenous group in Egypt, and fostering anti Black racism in any form prevents Copts and Nubians from recognizing their shared history of culture and struggle, and creating a larger block of power to resist the mistreatment done to them. Generous estimates number Copts at around 20 million in Egypt, and Nubians in Egypt as 5 million. The Egyptian population is around 100 million. 20 percent versus 25 may not seem like much, but it can matter a great deal. Numbers aside- if Copts and Nubians alone (not counting smaller groups in Egypt like the Beja and Amazigh) both laid at the feet of Egypt the crimes of evictions, property theft, forced Arabization, and so on, and understand them as linked, certain avenues of dismissal become more obviously illogical. It cannot be said “Copts only face oppression because they are Christians, there is no ethnic identity” (followed by claims all Copts are Arab, or that there is no difference), or “Nubians only face oppression because they aren’t really from here” (with the implications that Nubians should leave or assimilate) as easily with a straight face. It will still be said, of course. The people who say such things most ardently don’t care about logic. But those inclined to logic, to compassion, will see: those who are clever, but raised indoctrinated, some of them will see. This topic, as well as the history and interconnectedness of the church in Northeast Africa, deserve their own dedicated discussions as well, which I hope to discuss in the future.
A further clarification, is sadly, necessary: both because it may help others understand my politics, and so that when people refuse to understand them and claim I believe things I don’t, I can quote the very writing they are responding to and prove that they either have poor reading comprehension, or are liars. It solves little, practically speaking, but it satisfies me. So, the clarification: I don’t think Arab or Arabized Egyptians are foreigners. Egypt, in a modern sense, is a bunch of lines on a map; it is not a replica of historical borders (also lines on a map). I do not base my understanding of “foreign” or who is Egyptian on ethnicity. To be an Egyptian, one must live in Egypt. Even if one is more restrictive, saying one must be born in Egypt, Egypt has in its past 2000 years alone, hosted generations of Circassians, Kurds, Amazigh, Syrians, Palestinians, Nubians, and more, and even further flung groups such as Tamils, Mongolians, Sinhalese, and Chinese. I also frankly don’t care if someone is foreign or not. Not all foreigners act the same or possess the ability to act the same; if we are discussing economic politics in Egypt, it is certianly too imprecise to just speak of “foreigners”. Further, to act as though “Egyptian = Arabized, Non-Black, Muslim”, with everyone else needing to add Adjectives is a subtle form of bigotry itself, in line with “American = white, non-Hispanic, Christian”. To say one is “just Egyptian” can serve to create the idea that ANBM Egyptians are “normal”, and everyone is abnormal- or worse, that everyone else is not Egyptian. It is certainly already used that way towards Black Egyptians.
If you like what I do and can spare it, I always appreciate a few dollars thrown my way at: ko-fi.com/rosebijoumme
dzhooles 