There is a catch-all word of condemnation for denouncing what you do not personally like, but would prefer not to be seen to be passing personal judgment on; it is "offensive", as if there were a greater canon of other people's sensibilities against which it should be judged. The o-word appeared when certain feminists decided that women were, after all, more vulnerable than men and needed to be protected from certain words or ideas: thus there came into our lexicon the term "offensive to women".
Such mythical women became the mythical arbiter of what one might or might not say. The o-word became the conversational constable for all sorts of imagined victim-groups whose sensibilities had to be imaginatively consulted before one uttered a word. These groups were largely of American devising, and like so many things we imported from the US, most of the concepts were irrelevant to our real lives.
But as we used American terms such as ball-park figures, rain-checks and shoe-strings without having a clue what they meant, we began to import notions about offensiveness which had no relevance to our actual lives. Since until recently we had no black people to speak of, it can hardly have been in deference to local feelings that the word negro became "offensive". American negroes decided that the term negro was offensive; therefore we accepted their restrictions on the use to which we might put the English language in Ireland.
Handbook of victimhood
It is bizarre, especially if you do not belong to the offendable species, as middle-class, white heterosexual males do not. We cannot say that such-and-such a word offends us; we cannot say that we do not like to be called this-or-that; we cannot say to women: "Do not use the slang names for male genitals in our hearing." We are expected to take language instruction from our betters - the victims and worse, oh worse by far, the professional scholars of victimhood, their antennae quivering for implied insult, though none be intended, imagined or even understood.
The professional scholars of victimhood now have their handbook - The New Oxford Dictionary of English, which has garnered all sorts of publicity for its endorsement of the split infinitive. That the fissiparousness of non-subjectival verbs should be the main thrust of most discussion about this wretched tome is perhaps a measure of how craven we have become in the face of the language governesses of political correctness; all that is required is the o-word to be mentioned in connection with any subject, any term, and it must be abolished from our conversation. This is truly abject, truly pathetic, truly supine, truly cowardly and truly inert.
Hottentot
Suddenly, by the royal decree of the editor, Judy Pearsall, entire words have been declared offensive. Thus the word Hottentot is now deemed "offensive". Offensive to whom? Hottentots? I've never met any, never seen any, and never met anybody who has. Who is to know what Hottentots feel about the name Hottentots? Even if they do not like the word, why should I care? Do I care whether Liverpudlians decide they do not want to be called Liverpudlians? If I call them that, is that not my business, provided I do not intend abuse?
The same is true for Eskimo. It is a word. It has no intrinsic meaning which is derogatory - even NODE accepts that the popular belief that it means "eater of raw flesh" is mythical. Yet NODE declares it is "offensive". How? Why? Who is being offended when I refer to someone as an Eskimo? There is no implicit value system being invoked when I use the word, other than a desire to be plain and be understood. Everyone understands the word Eskimo: so why should I not use it? Interestingly enough, Stephen Pinker in his universally acclaimed book The Language In- stinct, published 1994, manages to get both Hottentot and Eskimo in the one sentence, and does so in perfect innocence. Only by the ancient and purely arbitrary linguistic despotism of the nursery, where words like botty and wee wee were outlawed, could his usage of blameless words be termed offensive.
Nodish political correctness also rules that Bantu is offensive unless it refers to language. This is piffle, and ignorant piffle too. Merely because Bantu was used offensively by some people in South Africa does not make the term Bantu in itself offensive, especially as it is irreplaceable. One of the fundamental and most enduring and visible racial differences within Africa is between between Nilotics and Bantu, regardless of language.
Spinster
NODE has also decided that "deaf mute" is offensive, and we should say profoundly deaf instead. Profoundly deaf does not mean the same thing; deaf mute means a deaf person who has not learned to talk. Strictly speaking, such people are not mute: but we know what we mean when we say it. A profoundly deaf person might have learned to speak, and is therefore not a deaf mute.
Spinster is ruled offensive, though in Ireland it has legal power and is irreplaceable; also "offensive", though it is etymologically irreproachable, is the word "squaw". And other shewords which are simply oldfashioned but at heart blameless, such as poetess and authoress, but not, for whatever arbitrary reason actress, are also now deemed offensive, sexist and patronising.
Dictionaries should define meanings, not be a vehicle for politically correct governess whinings. One dictionary for sale. Cheap.