The maker of offensive speech operates from a perceived hierarchy which gives him or her the pedestal from which to offend. Such a viewpoint, in order to realize its objective, must control discourse territory, support certain symbolic rituals, and attack ideas which might be defensive. Thus, a teacher might say that her children were "acting like a bunch of wild Indians." Now this is clearly offensive to many people. But the teacher might perceived herself to be in a position of hierarchy to make such a statement. She would not have thought to say "Wild Vandals" or "Wild Vikings." "Wild Indians" carried for her the kind of offense she was trying to convey. To some of her colleagues this may not have been offensive because they partake of the same general cultural bias. However, in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society, such language is inherently offensive to the quality of the social contract we hold with each other. Even more, there is something inherently unethical in the use of other people as an example of generalized depravity or negative behavior.
It is easier to answer why the deuterocanonical books were not in the Hebrew Tanakh. There are several reasons. Some books (Judith) were written in Hebrew, but seen as folklore. Others (Tobit) were never originally written in Hebrew. Some (Wisdom of Solomon) had their origins in Alexandria. Others (Maccabees and later vols of Ezra) were not always accepted as history. The Jews had a good reason for each to not be included. And, as a Christian not wedded to historical Hellenism, I am fine with their reasons with not receiving them and agree with them. Fixing the closing date for the Hebrew books, though, as far as I can recall, is a much trickier venture.