There is considerable variance in Egyptians' views on the different periods of colonization in the country's history, and I have no studies or similarly rigorous evidence of the majority's opinions. However, I think most view the period of British colonization, for example, as a prominent time of decline for Egypt, both due to the large-scale and comprehensive exploitation of Egypt under British rule and due to the war crimes and violence that British forces engaged in.
On the other hand, the period of Ottoman rule is quite polarizing, and this has increased in the last several years due to the tense relations with Turkey and an impression some have that Turkey is vying for regional leadership and a return to the "glory days" of the Ottoman Empire. Some view the Ottoman period as much better than the present situation even if they concede that it had many problems of its own, while others view it as a dark spot on a path of decline that spanned a few centuries.
On the whole, though, aside from some ardent nationalists and a subset of wealthier people, many Egyptians are thoroughly dissatisfied with the current status of Egypt and its noticeable deterioration from a regional and, at some points, global power to a shadow of its former self and a country struggling with mounting debt as well as low standards of living.
Whereas some nationalists tout the thousands of years of Egyptian civilization as evidence that Egypt is an exceptional or admirable country that is doing better than it has in decades, many critics of the country's status quo instead see the country's historical and cultural riches as even more reason that its current situation is markedly unbecoming of its historical status. Views on the causes of the present situation and potential solutions to it are quite varied as well, but profound discontent looms above most of them.
This is again a controversial subject, and there are four main camps when it comes to the question of "what is Egypt?" which in itself is unavoidably linked to the question of what Egyptian identity is:
• Those who see "real Egyptian identity" as exclusively made up of ancient Egypt and identities that can be traced back to it and consider all subsequent foreign rulers—such as Greeks, Arabs, and Ottomans—as invaders or colonizers. Currently, this tends to have a focus on Arab presence in Egypt, since Egypt remains part of the Arab world and retains an Arab identity to this day, whereas it doesn't retain an Ottoman or British identity from the period when it was ruled by either.
Fatima Naoot is an example of a relatively popular (or notorious, depending on where you stand) public figure among this camp. This is a brief video where she outlines her views. MEMRI has some questionable subtitles on other videos, but I watched this one and can confirm that the subtitles are pretty accurate:
Egyptian Poet Fatima Naoot: Egypt Was Conquered by the Arabs, Coptic Language Changed By Force
• Those who see Egypt as an Arab, Islamic entity and denounce ancient Egypt as a "pagan" and "non-believing" culture. Many in this camp believe that Egypt was destined by Allah to be conquered by Muslims and become an Islamic nation and a beacon of Islam. Islamists tend to fall within this camp, albeit to varying extents—for example, some of them express admiration for ancient Egyptian achievements in architecture and language but strongly denounce its religious identity and polytheism.
• Those who see Egypt as a Coptic country, where Coptic language and identity can supposedly be traced back to ancient Egypt (the "original" or "real" Egypt), and view Arabs as invaders and Islam as the religion of the invaders. You won't find many Coptic Christians who publicly or explicitly state this view, mainly because it is unsafe to do so owing to the strong opposition to Islam inherent therein.
Fatima Naoot has been embroiled in a lot of controversies over the years because of espousing a similar view, but being Muslim (at least nominally) gives her at least a thin layer of protection that a Christian wouldn't have when publicly stating such an opinion. Even then, she has faced some lawsuits and charges of "insulting religion" before.
• Those who see Egyptian identity as being made up of the sum of all or most cultural elements it has absorbed from different rulers and periods in its history, including ancient Egyptian, Greek, Arab, Ottoman, and even British as well as French. However, many in this camp also lean toward embracing one or more of these cultures over the others, whether due to religious considerations or ethnic identity (e.g., identifying more with Arabs or Ottomans than the British or French, due to geographical proximity or perceived cultural similarities).
Personally, I'm closest to the fourth view out of the abovementioned positions: I think our present identity is the product of all historical events that have preceded it and contains elements from almost all cultures that have ruled Egypt. This doesn't mean I view all of those events as positive or desirable; I just see it as arbitrary and historically untenable to draw a line at a specific period and declare that all that came after it has no relation to the "real" Egyptian identity that supposedly only existed before that line.
I already find almost any sort of national identity to be lacking in rigor in terms of definition or delineation, much less one describing a country that has been under the rule of various cultures over a few millennia.
This is not a subject I have been interested in or explored in any meaningful amount of detail, so I can't answer the question other than to say that, as I mentioned above, reception to Ottoman rule of Egypt in general as well as the policies enacted during that time is widely polarized and mixed.
