Let's say for the sake of argument Euclid owned a slave. Does that invalidate any of the derivation of geometric proofs from the 5 postulates in Euclid's elements? No. Ok. Does inserting an acknowledgement that Euclid owned a slave just before the QED of each proof provide any helpful or useful context for geometry? No. Ok. Are we better off if everyone tacitly moves away from ever learning or touching classical geometry in order to not have the connotation of "slaver maths" following them around? No.

You seem to have missed the core idea of math and science, and confused it with one of those other human endeavors subject to being in and out of political favor. So allow me to clarify. Science and math, above all else, is an ideological commitment to the premise that truth does not derive from authority. The validity of Euclid's elements does not derive from Euclid carrying a certain clout in a mathematical establishment of prestige. Relativity did not supplant Newtonian physics because Albert reached a certain level of control within the ranks of the Royal Society. Pointing out the views and beliefs of scientists and mathematicians which have since fallen out of favor maybe detracts from their respectability, but their work wasn't built on the authority of their institutional respectability in the first place.