Is it?
If it depends on context, please provide some examples of offensive and not offensive usage ;)
What I have in mind is to say something like "The Zulu were a savage people compared to e.g. the United Kingdom".
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityIs it?
If it depends on context, please provide some examples of offensive and not offensive usage ;)
What I have in mind is to say something like "The Zulu were a savage people compared to e.g. the United Kingdom".
When applied to animals or natural forces, it means fierce or violent. When applied to human beings, it means cruel, aggressive or vicious. So, it is very negative.
As a noun, a savage means “a member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized”, and is thus very offensive. It is now mainly a historical term.
Savage originally meant 'wild', as sauvage does in Old and modern French. It acquired two different transferred meanings when applied to human beings; as in 'savage fighters' it became 'fierce and bloodthirsty'; though this isn't always negative (whether applied to soldiers or guard-dogs) very few people would apply it to themselves, and, however apt a nineteenth-century historian might have thought your example, it can't be applied to a whole race these days. The other meaning, of 'untamed', meant 'uncivilized' in the technical sense. (Early anthropologists used savages for peoples who had not discovered agriculture, and barbarians for those who had agriculture but not metalworking). Like all scientific terms, it should have neither positive nor negative connotations; but the implications of unspoiled innocence (for Huxley in Brave New World and Rousseau as previously mentioned, for example) or animal brutishness (in too many examples to name) make it too difficult to use objectively.
What about Rousseau's Noble Savage?