//vetuste_ennemi
What about Guinea, Ghana, Nigeria and Benin? Weren't Africans from what are now these countries (not to mention many others in West Africa) the guys who actually caught the slaves for the Europeans to buy?
//
I am amazed that "Roots" hasn't been repeated on UK TV (at least not in peaktine on a major channel) but I still remember it from the first time around. The opening scene portrays Kinté having a casual stroll before being chased and caught in a net by a group of redcoats. Blazing hot sun, buttoned up collars, leather boots versus an unencumbered, shoeless, athletic type.
I think the author flatters the white portion of his target audience by implying guile was used to cause him to sprint towards the eventual net zone.
But why go to all this effort, per individual, at a time when you could collect them by the hundred? They could easily have been prisoners of war; a quick buck for the local big cheese.
And why sail the extra 500+ miles east, to the countries with the south-facing coasts, to do your catching, when they were readily available in a convenient port, on the west-facing coast, at the latitude where ships would hope to pick up the trade winds to take them west? That is to say they were headed that far south anyway, to catch the winds. Being able to sell British goods to African merchants (step three of the sugar triangle) and then not have to cross the Atlantic with an empty hold was part of the 'logic' to the operation but ship owners don't have time to hand for shore parties and hunting expeditions.
Long term colonial presence and systematic slave-taking (by the British army???) seems to be what is posited in this claim. In which case which countries did Britain hold; which were French, Portuguese, Dutch, German and so on?