Yes, it's an indisputable fact that the Europeans bought slaves from other Africans. Even African Americans are aware of this. Why do you think it's called the slave trade and not the "mass abduction/kidnapping and enslavement" or something? Either TIACN is trolling, or I'm misunderstanding what he was trying to say. But I thought it was common knowledge that the Europeans bought slaves, instead of capturing them themselves.
How can something be an "indisputable fact" when it's wrong? Also, learn what trade means.
Its fucking true. Slaves were already slaves once we got there.
No, dumbass. Apparently you think (or want to think that) White men just showed up in Africa one day and some Africans were like "Oh hey we're not using these slaves you can have them". That's not how it worked, buddy.
While it's true that some of the slaves taken to the Americas were slaves in Africa, the notion that Whites were only buying Africans who were already enslaved is absurd. Africans were sent by the White slave traders on raids to capture other blacks for the sole purpose of trading them for guns, cloth, etc. Though it was rare, White men would, at times, capture slaves themselves (yes, with guns and nets and shit), but usually the sent blacks to do it for them because they were too afraid of disease to travel too far from the coast. And either way, they stood to aquire more slaves if they got the tribes along the coast to go inland for them. Oh, and the coastal tribes were often threatened with slavery themselves if they didn't cooperate.
Even
if White men only bought slaves from other Africans (which wasn't the case), they were still facilitating a
huge slave trade. Weather whites personally went into the jungle to capture blacks or if they just sent other blacks to it for them, it makes no difference.