Resurrecting Pharaohs: Western Imaginations and Contemporary Racial-National Identity in Egyptian Tourism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an original, exciting and thorough analysis of the racial, colonial and national representational strategies depicting ancient Egypt. The paper covers impressive ground, and contributes to the study of global critical race and racism studies.
Author Response
Comments: This is an original, exciting and thorough analysis of the racial, colonial and national representational strategies depicting ancient Egypt. The paper covers impressive ground, and contributes to the study of global critical race and racism studies.
Response: Thank you for your time and feedback. The challenge of writing this paper has been its scope, but I also felt that a significant aspect of its contribution is its breadth. I appreciate your consideration and hope you find the revisions have sharpened and improved the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an intriguing paper that attempts to cover a very large and complex topic. Parts are very well written and engaging but overall could benefit from a re-read to make sure that the ideas flow cohesively and that there is consistency of style across the sections. The paper is however, written with passion - so often missing from academic papers. The key rider is in lines 57-60 and the objective in lines 64-68 - this review will therefore consider the paper in this light.
The introduction is generally fine, though there are the beginnings of over-reliance on Reid 2002 and also citation of Christian 2019 which is not in the reference list. Note the reference citation for Reid says University of California Press, which happens to be in Berkeley not "United Kingdom" [line 994] - in other words check all references for accuracy and completeness - there are a couple of other slips to attend to as well (e.g. Tum, Omercan should be Tüm, Ömercan; and line 904 should be deleted as it is just a formatting example).
The theoretical section (1.1) is rather muddled because it confounds key distinct concepts of race, nationality, nation, and ethnicity. The narrative here flows nicely but over-emphasises the racial dimensions - perhaps consider whether this could be more balanced.
Lines 133 and 138: it seems odd to have "whiteness" in lower case, implying a fakeness, and 'scare' quotes but Blackness capitalised as if this is an entity. Personally I agree that the concept of Whiteness is politicised racial invalid nonsense, but so are the related Coloured and Black categories that get reified in some official classification schemes (notably UK and US). Nonetheless this could do with sorting out because of the focus later in the paper on the controversy around the "race" of Cleopatra (notably being Macedonian or part-Macedonian does not imply she was White except in so far as pan-European cultures want to claim roots in Greek heritage .... though it is probable that she was not Black, within that crazy monochrome scheme)
Methods section is generally fine. The view of tourism as a conduit for colonial violence feels overplayed but is clearly stated, so it prepares the reader for a biased view, which is fine. However, one aspect of tourism in Egypt, which becomes central to the later parts of the paper is that Western tourism treats Egypt as an open-air museum - implicating a sort of exoticism and commodification of 'Ancient Egypt'.
Historical background section is a highly selective narrative - as one might expect in such a short space - but I wonder whether there has been rather too much reliant on Reid 2002. It reads a little light a summary of this work rather than an in-depth piece of original research or critical evaluation.
Lines 380-391: look at this again - it seems rather scrambled. I am assuming the reference to the "Egyptian Empire" is to the New Kingdom - it does not fit in the context of this paragraph, but it is important from the viewpoint that it included the Levant and Nubia, both major contributors to the topic in hand. Maybe take this sentence out or add a separate paragraph to make this point.
Section on Egyptian national movements is very useful and well organised.
The important strength of this paper is that it contrasts the promotion of Egypt as a destination seen in the European/North American industry with that found in the Arabic speaking industry, and does recognise the distinction between the interest in "ancient" Egypt and modern holiday resort and urban destinations. The major theme is that Egypt is seen as monolithic and monochrome in both cases. Notably, the absence of the African dimension is stark, as the conclusion observes. The main body of the paper covering contrasting presentations in media and promotions is both interesting and well written.
There is a major contrast in northern and southern Egypt because the two objectives of tourism have differing geographic contexts - both have engagement with northern Egypt of course, but it seems that it is primarily restricted to "ancient" Egypt (as the section on 'Egyptology' demonstrates).
Author Response
Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the effort you put into reading the paper and providing insightful feedback. Your comments were very helpful. I hope you find the revisions have sharpened and improved the paper.
Comment 1: This is an intriguing paper that attempts to cover a very large and complex topic. Parts are very well written and engaging but overall could benefit from a re-read to make sure that the ideas flow cohesively and that there is consistency of style across the sections. The paper is however, written with passion - so often missing from academic papers. The key rider is in lines 57-60 and the objective in lines 64-68 - this review will therefore consider the paper in this light.
Response 1: I have reviewed the paper for flow and cohesiveness, adding sentences that link ideas and connect one paragraph to the next.
Comment 2: The introduction is generally fine, though there are the beginnings of over-reliance on Reid 2002 and also citation of Christian 2019 which is not in the reference list. Note the reference citation for Reid says University of California Press, which happens to be in Berkeley not "United Kingdom" [line 994] - in other words check all references for accuracy and completeness - there are a couple of other slips to attend to as well (e.g. Tum, Omercan should be Tüm, Ömercan; and line 904 should be deleted as it is just a formatting example).
Response 2: I have added additional citations in the introduction and the historical background sections to avoid over-reliance on Reid. I have reviewed and edited the in-text citations and the reference list.
Comment 3: Lines 133 and 138: it seems odd to have "whiteness" in lower case, implying a fakeness, and 'scare' quotes but Blackness capitalised as if this is an entity. Personally I agree that the concept of Whiteness is politicised racial invalid nonsense, but so are the related Coloured and Black categories that get reified in some official classification schemes (notably UK and US). Nonetheless this could do with sorting out because of the focus later in the paper on the controversy around the "race" of Cleopatra (notably being Macedonian or part-Macedonian does not imply she was White except in so far as pan-European cultures want to claim roots in Greek heritage .... though it is probable that she was not Black, within that crazy monochrome scheme)
Response 3: I agree with this comment and have opted to use lower case letters for both “black” and “white” throughout the paper in an effort to keep it straightforward and not distract from the arguments.
Comment 4: Methods section is generally fine. The view of tourism as a conduit for colonial violence feels overplayed but is clearly stated, so it prepares the reader for a biased view, which is fine. However, one aspect of tourism in Egypt, which becomes central to the later parts of the paper is that Western tourism treats Egypt as an open-air museum - implicating a sort of exoticism and commodification of 'Ancient Egypt'.
Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. Your mention of Egypt as an open-air museum, in particular, introduced an exciting new analytical frame for me as I move forward with my dissertation and related papers. I have briefly addressed this in pages 166-176.
Comment 5: Historical background section is a highly selective narrative - as one might expect in such a short space - but I wonder whether there has been rather too much reliant on Reid 2002. It reads a little light a summary of this work rather than an in-depth piece of original research or critical evaluation.
Response 5: I have added additional information and citations to the historical background sections to avoid over-reliance on Reid.
Comment 6: Lines 380-391: look at this again - it seems rather scrambled. I am assuming the reference to the "Egyptian Empire" is to the New Kingdom - it does not fit in the context of this paragraph, but it is important from the viewpoint that it included the Levant and Nubia, both major contributors to the topic in hand. Maybe take this sentence out or add a separate paragraph to make this point.
Response 6: I think you are referring to lines 342-345 of the first submission of the manuscript. I have rephrased lines 330-336 of this submission.
Comment 7: Section on Egyptian national movements is very useful and well organised.
Response 7: Thank you.
Comment 8: The important strength of this paper is that it contrasts the promotion of Egypt as a destination seen in the European/North American industry with that found in the Arabic speaking industry, and does recognise the distinction between the interest in "ancient" Egypt and modern holiday resort and urban destinations. The major theme is that Egypt is seen as monolithic and monochrome in both cases. Notably, the absence of the African dimension is stark, as the conclusion observes. The main body of the paper covering contrasting presentations in media and promotions is both interesting and well written. There is a major contrast in northern and southern Egypt because the two objectives of tourism have differing geographic contexts - both have engagement with northern Egypt of course, but it seems that it is primarily restricted to "ancient" Egypt (as the section on 'Egyptology' demonstrates).
Response 8: Thank you for your comments and insights. I hope to continue building on this research and delve deeper into depictions of Northern versus Southern Egyptian identity. I am also very interested in representations of Egyptian national identity in the Arabic-speaking industry and in how a Muslim Pharaonic Egypt is articulated and imagined across Arab/Muslim countries. I have greatly benefited from your feedback and hope you find the edits have improved the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an excellent paper! The Global Critical Race and Racism (GCRR) framework is both appropriate and useful for the analysis of this topic. Might also want to mention possible criticisms of GCRR in analyzing tourist attractions. Is racism always the major factor? See attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your time and feedback. Your mention of Disneyfication, in particular, introduced an exciting new analytical frame for me moving forward. I appreciate your consideration and hope you find the revisions have sharpened and improved the paper.
Comments 1: This is an excellent paper! The Global Critical Race and Racism (GCRR) framework is both appropriate and useful for the analysis of this topic. Might also want to mention possible criticisms of GCRR in analyzing tourist attractions. Is racism always the major factor? See attached.
Response 1: I have added criticisms of GCRR as a framework for analyzing tourism. Although I believe race proliferates throughout and seeps into all institutions and representations of identity, there are certainly other major factors guiding tourism-related state decision-making that, at times, eclipse racial motivations and need to be acknowledged. I have included this in lines 110-119.
Comments 2: How about less jargon; more plain speak. Define presentism.
Response 2: I removed the mention of presentism since it does not come up again later in the paper and added unnecessary jargon (line 43).
Comment 3: Disneyfication of museums.
Response 3: I had not come across this term, but have since read some of Ritzner ( 2002) and Bryman (1999). I define and include it in my discussion of tourism on lines 157-161. Thank you for the suggestion. I will incorporate the idea of Disneyfication into my dissertation, which covers topics similar to those in this paper.
