Why were the Moors so much more successful than other black civilizations?

WE

Moroccans mixed with their european slaves for centuries and vice versa, their king's wife could pass as a local here in France

Othello

>Here in France
Bonjour Mohammed, she looks like a very pale ginger Moroccan. You can tell by the nose and other facial features, I would not be quick to call her French.

Is that her natural hair color? How common are gingers in North Africa

Well considering we have a ton of "white Riffian berbers" here, I would say rather rare. 99% is black haired, dark eyed and tanned

they weren't black or subsaharan africns. They were berbers and arabs.

>there's some black moroccans but theyre far and few between.
>Yet Ancient and Medieval Europe were filled with Blacks

Because they were not black

Very common in the Atlas mountains, and the gene only exists in a bunch secluded tribes, Queen Salma is one of them, Riffians only have some blonde inidividuals because they got Vandaled and Visigothed.
It's Spanish propaganda, before the 3th crusade, and Saladin's rise to muh chivalry fame, he was depicted as dark skinned, devilish feature like the pointy beard, after muh chivalry, he somehow became like your standard persian Shah, olive colored, wavy hair instead of sheep wool.
pic related, berber servant of Seti, found in his tomb, the ancient berber probably looked lighter than what they look now, considering they are 15% SSA now.

Blacks south of the sahara evolved in very different living conditions over thousands of years than those who evolved in the sahara.

In the Sahara, the most likely things to kill you are hunger, thirst, exposure, or competition. South of the Sahara, it was disease.

North Africans had to survive against similar odds as Eurasians, and had contact with Eurasians.

They couldn't survive by hunting alone, they couldn't survive without complex agricultural planning, they couldn't sleep on a mound of leaves or in a dodgy mud hut, they couldn't just move farther away to escape competition.

They had to create complex agricultural practices, they had to build better houses, they had to stay in a relatively limited area that was hospitable, they couldn't tuck tail and bugger off if competition began.

Sub-Saharan African life rewards breeding and punishes biological weakness. Saharan African life rewards intelligence, creativity, and diplomacy, and punishes foolishness and laziness.

Spend a few thousand years living in those environments, and the people living in those conditions will reflect that.

How come they have the same IQ as black Americans.

But what about where they blend?

It comes down to how you define "black" if clay Thomson and Steph Curry are "black", which they are in the US, then most morrocans are black.

Holy shit this is aesthetic as fuck

>Implying they don't blend in the sahel.

In order for your narrative to work they would have to be sexually incomparable. The the racial gradient that part of the world is on a spectrum, it's not a strict binary that racial purists wish it was.

incompatible*

>race doesn't exist because there's some mixing
my "narrative?" it's a fact that they were berbers/arabs. if some of them were mixed, that doesn't change anything.

"moors"weren't a real people, beyond the name of some obscure berber tribe named by the Romans.
What europeans refered to as moors is an amalgation of Islamic Arabs, Berbers, and Iberians in Southern Europe and North Africa

>Some mixing

That vast majority of africans in that part of the world are a mixture of those separate elements to varying degrees. The Moors succeeded because they have always been a mulattic people.

Look at Mauritania, that country and it's people are quintessentially moorish.

Nope sorry. Moors were white.
You can't have a successful civilization without being white.

This. Moors were blonds with blue eyes and white skin.

>White inferiority complex
You're lack of an argument is a concession.

Mauritania is essentially a colonial name based on old Roman names that was taken up so that the country would have some semblance of historic relevance. There is nothing especially more "moorish" about them more so than Moroccans or Algerians, who were in any case much more historically relevant as the "moors" referred to by Europeans

>black-and-white concept of race is a literal meme
>Moors were genetically distinct from sub-saharan Africans
What did he mean by this?

Even then Morrocans run the spectrum from looking like what would be considered objectively black to southern European.

>Why were the Moors so much more successful than other black civilizations?
What was there success? Enslave a Billion Spaniards? Conquer a white country? even a Mongol could do that. Moors were probably the most interesting blacks to ever live because where they came from is not entirely known but, to say they were greater than Mali is a stretch.

>he hasn't read The Story of the Moors in Spain available for free at (project) gutenberg dot org

>My hatred for Americans(black) destroys my cognitive abilities

>run the spectrum
have you never heard the term "generalization"?

you normally look at the majority of the populations genetic admixture to see where they lie, I'm sure if you google it youll find north Africans present day and ancient were majority Arabic with a spice of eastern African, they sure as hell weren't subsaharan

Sub-saharan is a new racially charged label they have always interacted and blended in the transitional zone that is the sahel. I know some people wish there was a strict wall at the border of Senegal, but there isn't, and has never been.

Because non-muslim blacks pay for being infidels by being slaves for white people. All they had to do was accept islam and they could have achieved some form of civilization

>but there isn't
sounds to me like your argument is built upon a false premise
north africans are largely arabic muslims, which means most (>50%) of their genetic background comes from the middle east/ east africa

So would east africa south of the Sahara be considered "sub-saharan" and what about haritans and other peoples of Mauritania? I'm just trying to find some level of logical consistency.

What are those markings on his sword?

Retard

yuck
looks like the mods forget one of your shitty /pol/ threads
hey boys come pick this one up

Most of the tribes of the Sahara lived according to a strict caste system, with what we'd call Berbers at the top, rulers, warriors and clergy, and outright black African slaves at the very bottom, who were sometimes freed and turned to metal or leatherworking. A caste system that is still very much alive, despite the best efforts of the French to suppress it.

Haratins are a special case, as they descend from black African slaves brought further north by Berbers. They're an interesting case, as most saharan Berbers wouldn't consider them part of their own group/ethnicity despite sharing customs, language, way of living. For a long time, they were simply considered as "black Moors" by Europeans, ruled by a minority of "white Moors" or what we'd call Beidanes in Mauritania, saharan Berbers. Most of the societies of the Sahel still follow the same rules as they did for centuries, though, and they're still treated like dogshit by Berbers, who'd never consider them their people. For example, it's surprising to see this man , with clearly African features, holding a sword, something still extremely sacred among Tuaregs and other saharan Berbers. But he might just be an outlier, descendent of a Haratin who has managed to rise up.

"Moorish" society is definitely a mixed society, and some individuals are clearly the product of mixing between Berbers and Black Africans, but the Berbers making up the majority of what Europeans called "Moors" aren't overall a mixed people, and wouldn't want to be considered as such. They're simply the native population of North Africa and the Sahara. With that said, the Sahel was definitely a zone of interaction between peoples/races, and some ethnicities clearly reflect that (thinking of Peuls from the west of the Sahel, for example).

I'm pretty sure most Maghrebis are in majority of Berber/North African background, with Semitic influence being present but not 50%.

"Moors" are by definition mixed because of their geographic location of where white meets black. There is no such thing as a "pure" moor or berber just a spectrum of phenotypes depending in their white/black ratio.