[jeffersondem]

“That's “enshrined”, slavery was never “enshrined” it was never even explicitly mentioned, rather it was snuck in the back door under false pretenses, like a man bringing his mistress home for a dalliance, hoping nobody would notice. . . Fine, in my little metaphor, the husband sneaks his new mistress into his home, “acknowledging” only by calling her a “maid”. When challenged he says, “yes, but look up the definition of the word ‘maid’ — it includes ‘other services’ doesn't it?”

You have previously painted those who owned slaves as one-dimensional “slavers.” Now, you create an ill-compounded narrative depicting the founding fathers of the United States as not just slave masters, but whore masters.

That's a little over-the-top, even by your devolving standards.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You have previously painted those who owned slaves as one-dimensional “slavers.”

And what one-dimensional name would you use for them?
What two-dimensional name would you use?

jeffersondem: "Now, you create an ill-compounded narrative depicting the founding fathers of the United States as not just slave masters, but whore masters."

And what, exactly, would you call slavers, keeping in mind the following:

"The average African-American genome, for example, is 73.2% African, 24% European, and 0.8% Native American."

Would you say any of those European-ancestry fathers of mulatto children "enshrined" the mothers in holy matrimony?
Or did they just sneak around when nature called?

Please, take your time thinking it over.
Answer carefully, FRiend.