...before arabs/European invasions.

Incase anyone didn't know, I'm a huge history buff but this has been bugging me.

Why would it have to fit neatly into one of two continental categories or a single cultural/religious one?

Egyptian history is Egyptian history. For a long time Egypt was the most powerful nation around, and accordingly it defined its own era. Egypt's power waned eventually, and it was both a factor in and a result of the affairs of other powers.

You can definitely look at sections of history that might focus on a given region or culture or whatever, but these are broad sweeps rather than hard and fast categories with well defined, bright-line borders between them.

So I suppose my answer to your question is any of the above and others, if the section of history I'm looking at happens to be one of them and also involves Egypt. But if I were to examine Egypt specifically, I wouldn't use any other category as my defining paradigm.

Why would it have to fit neatly into one of two continental categories or a single cultural/religious one?

Egyptian history is Egyptian history. For a long time Egypt was the most powerful nation around, and accordingly it defined its own era. Egypt's power waned eventually, and it was both a factor in and a result of the affairs of other powers.

You can definitely look at sections of history that might focus on a given region or culture or whatever, but these are broad sweeps rather than hard and fast categories with well defined, bright-line borders between them.

So I suppose my answer to your question is any of the above and others, if the section of history I'm looking at happens to be one of them and also involves Egypt. But if I were to examine Egypt specifically, I wouldn't use any other category as my defining paradigm.

LOL I don't dispute that. "American history is American history" just as "Egyptian history is Egyptian history". Using American history as an example, there are certain parts of the history that exclude certain groups. You wouldn't say that Christopher Columbus sailing to America and murdering the Indians is black or African history. But it could be called European or white history. Black history in America comes later.

I asked a simple question about Ancient Egypt analogous to the Christopher Columbus example above.

Maybe you should reread what I asked.

Since when does any kind of history have to fit into a neat little category? I'd've thought the question was concerning what era ancient Egypt would fall under but since that is not the case and instead your question is about which 'history' the history of ancient Egypt fits into I really don't know what to say. It's self-contained - certainly there are other countries who have a past which overlaps with that of the Egyptians but certainly you'd'nt call 'Egyptian' history 'European' instead just because they were 'part of it'?! That'd be ridiculous!

Also, Christopher Columbus arriving to america is (duh) american history and ancestry. Partly it also contains some strokes from European history, for sure, which, once again, I point out is what overlapping history is all about - there doesn't have to be a clear cut line that screams 'THIS IS OURS NOT YOURS!'. Otherwise, what would you call WW2? German history? Certainly. American? Certainly. European? Oh yes. So on ad infinitum.

What does African history have to do with anything? If your insinuating that the slavery somehow isn't relevant to African history then I don't know what you are on... "Black" history comes later? Uhhm, okay. I am pretty sure that there are quite a few historians who would gladly disagree with you there. I don't really know what you mean with 'later' but yeah okay - I'll let that one slide.

Also: "Eurpopean"? Yes, I am one of those people. Maybe you should re-read; your question makes no sense and seems more like trolling then anything else.

Obvious troll.

Also: "Eurpopean"? Yes, I am one of those people. Maybe you should re-read; your question makes no sense and seems more like trolling then anything else.

Read some of his other threads. He likes stupid/inflammatory topics and then ... creatively misunderstands people or rips some poor, helpless sentence out of context. So yeah, probably a troll, although a voice inside me suggests it's not trolling, he really is stupid.

Egyptology! What else?

American history is a poor analogy, because it is a convolution of parallel cultures with wildly different roots "merging" together. Therefore, to look at American history per culture basis makes sense to a certain point (i.e.. Native Indians vs African slaves vs European settlers, and so forth). However, categorising Ancient Egypt in the same way is difficult for many reasons. Egypt was single, unique culture reigning that part of the world for millennia.

P.S. Arab history doesn't even come close at that timeline, as it was preceded by Sumerians.

LOL I don't dispute that. "American history is American history" just as "Egyptian history is Egyptian history". Using American history as an example, there are certain parts of the history that exclude certain groups. You wouldn't say that Christopher Columbus sailing to America and murdering the Indians is black or African history. But it could be called European or white history. Black history in America comes later.

I asked a simple question about Ancient Egypt analogous to the Christopher Columbus example above.

Christopher Columbus can absolutely be considered a part of black or African history. He had a lot to do with slaving and the slave trade in the New World, if not on the main continent. You could even stretch it further, as the initial forays into the Americas (specifically, the way in which they were made) set the stage for slavery as the economic engine for the United States.

Maybe you should reread what I asked.
[/quote]

Sure thing:

[What category of history does ancient Egypt fall under]
...before arabs/European invasions.

Incase anyone didn't know, I'm a huge history buff but this has been bugging me.

The thing is, I read the threads that you post pretty carefully and post reasonably thoughtful answers. Your initial question is incredibly vague, and depends on a frame of reference that is not absolute. As my reply clearly stated, I think that Egyptian history can be meaningfully considered through any of those lenses. It does not fall under any one moreso than the others.

Egypt had a huge impact on all of the categories you provided, and was also impacted by them. Sure, Egypt is mostly in Africa, so that could be a contender-- any history in that part of Egypt would be geographically African. But part of it is also in Asia, which you didn't even present as an option. Europe was heavily integrated with Egypt via trade and geopolitical/military tension, to the extent that you can't discuss some major portions of European history without Egypt being involved. So it certainly falls under the European tent as well.

Why do people have to choose between them and only them? What is the value of declaring it definitively to be part of any of three broad groups that eventually did invade and occupy it before any of the invasions took place? The idea that those three categories of history are the only choices is absurd, and to say that ancient Egypt is wholly owned by European history or African history or Arab history absurd as well. Since we can define categories in nearly any way we would like I presented the Egyptian one to you as the most appropriate, vastly moreso than the three you presented. It is definitely the category I would favor over a contrived set of categories presented absolutely with no reason as to why my options are so limited, and the question itself so arbitrary and vague.

The analogy you presented doesn't suit the question you asked, because what you would be asking by analogy is "Which category does black history in America fall under before America was colonized: Christopher Columbus, Italian, or French". Or for a totally new analogy, "What category does fast food fall into before the invention of fast food restaurants: McDonalds, Burger King, or Wendy's". Your qualification forces revisionism onto the question, and it doesn't even fit.

If your question is where did Egypt have the most influence of the three, or which had the most influence on Egypt in the pre-invasion eras, or something like that, that's a discussion that can take place. But to ask which of the three you presented is the proper category for the history of Egypt itself is imprecise and revisionist.