Full disclosure: I'm a graduate of Florida State University and an ardent Seminole fan.

As a conservative, I reject the liberal slogan, "the personal is political." Among other problems, that perverse progressive axiom turns hurt feelings into civil rights issues. Feeling offended? Proclaim yourself a victim, invoke your "right" not to be offended, and sue somebody. The possibility of financial compensation goes a long way toward soothing hurt feelings.

So using Indian imagery for sports teams now is deemed offensive; even racist by some though that badly distorts the true meaning of racism.

It began with objections to the word "Indian" that led to the now obligatory use of "Native American." As Christopher Columbus thought he had found the "Indies," he called the people "Indians." It was an honest and understandable mistake which political correctness has turned into an insult.

But the very name "America" was a mistake too. Sixteenth-century cartographer Martin Waldseemuller thought that Amerigo Vespucci, not Columbus, had discovered this new land and therefore labelled it "America" on his map. Should Americans really be insulted because the name "America" was a mistake? Of course not. Let's just be glad he didn't call it "Vespuccia."

Now we are told that it is demeaning to use tribal names and imagery. But how, exactly, does this demean Indians? And is it only Indians? Are the Irish demeaned by Notre Dame's use of "Fighting Irish?" What about Vikings, Trojans, Saxons, Spartans, Swedes, Vandals, Scots, Dutchmen, Gaels, Norse, and "Ragin' Cajuns" - all ethnic group nicknames currently used by college teams.

Being part-Cajun myself, I rather like that last one.

When Florida State University established a football program in 1947, the team needed a name. The students voted from a list that included Seminoles, Statesmen, Tarpons, Warriors, and – most fun of all – Crackers.

They chose Seminoles because of the obvious local identification and because they wanted the team to be associated with the toughness and tenacity of the Seminole people who had, after all, fought the US Army to a standstill between 1835-42. Racist insult? Come on.

But if even only a few individuals are offended, why do it? Because this isn't about the personal disapproval of a few self-appointed guardians of Indian sensibilities.

The personal is not political. Who made them the judges anyway? More importantly, why should they get to redefine "racism?" Substantively, racism means denying people their legitimate rights because of their race. Preventing black people from voting because they're black is racism. Naming a sports team after an Indian tribe is not.

Of course, with their typical tolerance and open-mindedness, liberals dismiss and condemn those Indians who support such use, calling them names like "Uncle Tom-Tom." No racist insult there, right?

I do think that those who object to "Redskins" have half a point; but only half a point. It was a pejorative term. But it was more akin to whites being called "palefaces" than to the truly offensive racial slurs with which it usually is equated. And time has further softened it.

Today, the word "redskin" refers as much to a kind of potato as it does to Indians. I don't care if the Washington Redskins eventually change their name, but they should not do it because of pressure from hypersensitive cranks who clearly are looking for ways to be offended.

I am proud of FSU for standing up to the ideologically motivated pressure to abandon the Seminole imagery, though this issue won't go away until common sense returns and people get tired of politically correct goofiness.

FSU's consistent response to the critics, and that of any fan whose team name is similarly attacked, should be to remind everyone that the personal is not political.

Using Indian imagery is not demeaning, it is not insulting, it is not racism. The critics are simply wrong – and very thin-skinned.

In the meantime … "Scalp 'em, Seminoles!"