Which homeland? You mean the European metropoles, right? Because the slaves' Homeland didn't do so great out of slavery.
Actually considerable amounts of African warlords sprang up and profited greatly from it. Tippu Tip comes to mind as a particularly famous one, though perhaps being a poor example.
Very few slaves were forcefully taken by the Europeans. In fact, early attempts at this failed spectacularly. Instead, European slave traders relied almost entirely upon people there willingly selling the slaves to them. This, at first, wasn't that bad. In time, however, the entire society of Africa was changed so that many tribes along the coast would make a living taking slaves from people further inland and bringing them to the coast for goods such as firearms, horses, and trinkets. The Europeans were definitely the facillitator of this trade in that if they weren't there then no african slaves would be shipped off to the new world with a life expectancy in some places not exceeding 5-7 years. However, the Europeans were merchants shuffling goods. They needed someone to sell them a product or else they wouldn't be able to obtain it.
Its not something we like to think about, or something that is well known, but the Atlantic (and even Pacific) slave trade was a complex network of trading relations between African societies living on the coasts and European slave merchants. It was not a European making land fall and capturing whatever person of dark skin they came across, that would come much later and mostly in the form of folk tales rather than actually based in fact. Also, while immense demographic problems ensued the population of Africa actually skyrocketed.
The really strange thing is that Europeans didn't even establish the racist justification for the slave trade until almost a century after it reached its biggest boom. The Catholic Church in particular gave the "Okay" signal for enslaving heathens, but was adamantly against the enslavement of Christians in the new world. There are some interesting tales of the colonial governments taking place in Latin America trying to keep priests away from slaves and forced laborers, the Catholic Church also was not happy with the final dissolution and killing off of the Inca Empire as they had converted and were recognized as an independent kingdom [at least de jure].
The Atlantic Slave Trade came about because of the sheer amount of sense it made economically. There was no qualms with enslaving heathens, the sheer amount of success and wealth it produced made most people fall in love with the idea, and the African societies they were in contact with were more than willing to sell rivals to the Europeans in exchange for goods that they couldn't obtain where they were. The racism only came when it was time to legitimize the trade taking place centuries later. After all, they had no qualms enslaving Russians, Tartars, Arabs, Pagan Scandinavians, Native Americans, Chinese, and so forth. In fact the Baltic Slave Trade was a trade dealing entirely with whites. A racial justification was something unique that evolved with time and mounting pressures against the old way of doing things. You would probably be surprised that Thomas Jefferson had the suspicion only that there was a racial difference with Blacks that would justify them remaining in their state, and this was well after the Atlantic Slave Trade had started to die.
Here's what I'm quoting:
The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will
often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an
animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only
wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their
reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find
that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never see even an
elementary trait of painting or sculpture. In music they are more generally gifted than the whites
with accurate ears for tune and time . . . . Whether they will be equal to the composition of a
more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved. Misery is often
the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry. —Among the blacks is misery enough, God
knows, but no poetry.
***
[4] To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our
eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of
natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a
distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the
endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species
of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications.
http://www.historytools.org/sources/Jefferson-Race.pdf
The way to avoid the concept of racial slavery is actually very easy, but avoiding the Atlantic Slave Trade, which was made up primarily of Africans from the western coasts of central and western Africa, is not easy. A stronger influence of the church might actually be all that's necessary, or simply less numbers of people being brought over from Africa. You cannot avoid it, but perhaps you can partially minimize it. Increased interracial marriages might also due the trick. More slavery of whites could also assist in this. Say a heretical group gains a large amount of popularity in western or northern Europe and the Papacy signs a document saying they could be enslaved, that would almost instantaneously increase the presence of non-black slaves in the new world. Another way to go about doing this is delaying the rise of evolutionary concepts, as it was with this rise that people started applying its concepts within the human species that racism truly sprung. Racism had existed before, especially in China, but Racism did not have a broad appeal on the global stage until after the development of so-called Darwinism.