It's not uncommon to see literary texts from highly urbanized societies like Mesopotamia and Egypt mocking outside groups for their clothing, dietary habits, housing, perceived character traits, etc., but it cannot be emphasized enough that these are ideological statements and do not necessarily reflect how most people in those societies actually felt about outsiders.

We see many negative statements in Egyptian military inscriptions about "wretched Retjenu" (Canaan), for example, and yet kings like Thutmose III married Canaanite women. Similarly, Ramesses II was quite negative and dismissive about the Hittites in his Kadesh inscriptions, referring to the Hittite king as the "Enemy" and the "Fallen One," and yet he had few qualms about establishing a peace treaty with the Hittites, marrying Hittite princesses, exchanging gifts and technical experts with the Hittites, and so on.

The Egyptologist Thomas Schneider has used the terms topos (highly negative depictions of foreigners in ideological statements in monumental/royal inscriptions) and mimesis (more favorable and realistic depictions of foreigners in everyday texts) to differentiate between the contradictory attitudes we see in the Egyptian textual record.

I've written a few posts about this over on r/askhistorians.

• What was the the culture and ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians?

• Egyptian-Hittite relations

• Babylonian-Egyptian relations

• To what degree were Pantheons shared in the Late Bronze Age Near East?

• In the Ancient world, were kingdoms/Empires/Realm aware of events happening in far away places in other kingdoms/Empires/Realms?

• If the Amarna Letters were discovered in Egypt, why are their correspondences written by the Pharaohs and their officials and not just a collection of correspondences from foreign rulers?

• The biblical Hagar is described as Egyptian and working for a Hebrew family. Are there any records from pre-Achaemenid Egypt of ethnic Egyptians living and working outside of Egypt for foreign peoples?

Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East by Trevor Bryce and Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East by Amanda Podany are the best introductions to Bronze Age diplomacy. They're a bit more theoretical, but Mario Liverani's International Relations in the Ancient Near East and Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations edited by Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook are very interesting reads as well. The latter includes contributions not only by Egyptologists and ancient Near Eastern historians but also specialists in political science and international relations.

To understand egypts relationship to outsiders you have to understand that Egyptians viewed Egypt as the kingdom of ma'aat (order, justice, how things were supposed to be) and non-Egypt as the kingdom of isfet (chaos, injustice, misrule, to do evil). With some exceptions everything outside the nile valley was chaos and unfamiliar, with the rivers being unreliable, the rulers strange and capricious and the people violent and given to chaos&misrule.

So much of egypts relations with abroad was the ritual conquest of chaos, with each pharaoh warring (or raiding under less militarily&economicly prosperous pharaohs) to establish dominance and take tribute. This changed somewhat over the millenia (with for example medjay mercenaries becoming the norm in the new kingdom era as internal security troops, to the point that medjay became the egyptian word for police), but in general egypt was suspicious of non-egyptians who hadn't established their role in the egyptian order.

The thing is, people didn't really care about race the way we do now. They were more focused on culture and nationality than skin color. The ancient Egyptians themselves were a very diverse people, as were many civilizations in the past such as the Mongols, and Romans, which is why people back then had a tendency to focus more on someone's culture and nationality. Back then what seemed to have mattered most was what language you spoke, who you prayed to, and who you paid your taxes to :P But to answer your question, they did view their culture as more civilized than their neighbors, but they didn't see themselves as semigods, and intermarriages were extremely common. There's records of marriages between Egyptians and Berbs, Romans, Greeks, Jewish people, Hittites etc.

I don’t know the answer to this however I know that at times the Romans came to Egypt and so it was certainly a mix of different cultures with the Romans being the ruling class at that point

[removed]

[removed]

For example nubians were captives. And enemy. Even tuthankamon had a walking stick with a captive nubian figurine on it 💁🏼‍♀️

Ya, you can pretty much assume every culture was wildly racist until like 1900. Not 100% accurate but a pretty safe bet.

You might want to clarify if you mean the rulers of Egypt (often not Egyptian) or the local populace.

Pretty much everybody but the Minoans were “foreign barbarians.” Wonderful lecture series by Bob Brier at the learning company/the great courses. Charles Pelligrino also did a great look at the ancient world and Thera/Minoan civilization in “Return to Sodom and Gomorrah.”