Egyptian nationalists adopted colonial stereotypes about Sudanese savagery to claim dominance

Evidence

Kämil originated this particular dualism in the definitions of fanatical [mut`asib] and barbarian [mutawahish] and asserted it as a basis for Egyptian domination. As he described them, the Sudanese were fanatic and savage, particularly in terms of religion. Only Egyptian Muslims knew how to translate this wild energy into a viable society. “We know them,” Kämil seemed to be saying of the Sudanese, “but we are not them.” His representation of the Sudanese, however, distorted their image with the same force that British invectives against savagery visited on the image of Egyptians. The identification with both colonizer and colonized within the Egyptian nationalist movement presents itself vividly here. — Eve M. Troutt Powell, A Different Shade of Colonialism_…, 753

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the wider literature on ‘sub-imperialism’ or ‘colonized colonizers’ — Egyptians both colonized by Britain and colonial toward Sudan, paralleling e.g. how the Ottoman Empire’s provincial elites adopted Orientalist tropes.
• DEEPTHINKING: Dense point: the colonized Egyptian nationalist mirrors the colonizer’s civilizational discourse onto the Sudanese, showing internalized hierarchy and layered coloniality — supports a multi-layered rather than binary framework of African coloniality.