Patriotism is Justifiable

I appreciate my opponent's responses. This is the final round. "My opponent now asserts that objects are equivalent to their parts. Consider a human being that had had all the connections between his atoms severed. According to my opponent's logic, he would still "exist" because the particles that made him up are still in existence. This can be applied to object or structure- a sword, a house, or a nation. Structure is irreducible to its components." Unfortunately my opponent's argument is what is fundamentally flawed here. A human, by definition, certainly DOES have connections between the particles that make up the human - otherwise, said human is a collection of particles and no longer a human at all! The human "exists" as the parts that make up that human, no more, no less, and the connections between those parts are parts in themselves. Connections are not somehow a - physical entities that exist in another reality, they are just a much a part of the human being as the particles that make up the atoms that make up the human being. Regardless of the analogy, my opponent's argument remains flawed - if in the future all Canadians lived independently of one another or became self sufficient in some sense, they would remain part of the nation - state of Canada. They do not need to be "connected" in any sense to be part of a country, though they usually are. "It isn't necessarily racist to "prefer" whites to blacks in the sense of preferring a lighter skin rather than a darker one. This is probably only applicable in real life to sexual preferences; in sexuality there are people who prefer whites and some who prefer blacks or Asians. It has been suggested that even in societies where outright racism is taboo (even in those which have egalitarian attitudes) an aversive racism still exists subconsciously due to herd mentality. However, there are some things that shouldn't be influenced by ethnicity, such as judgment of character or attributes." Why "should" racial preferences have to be involved in sexuality? What my opponent is saying here is that there is MERIT in these racial preferences, otherwise they would be inconsequential to my opponent's argument. The question, then, is what merit? My opponent also seems to be justifying racism with the fact that it exists subconsciously in some parts of the world. My opponent says that there are "some things that shouldn't be influenced by ethnicity," presumably referring to human judgements, but why should ANYTHING of a person's character or mind be judged by ethnicity? My opponent here attempts to justify racism, but as my opponent himself has conceded racism (or "ethnic hatred") is apparently one of the main causes of the various conflicts I have mentioned! "Nations are the same way. I might prefer my American custom of walking inside homes with shoes, while the Japanese find it disrespectful. I am happy with my native language of English, but that doesn't make it superior to other languages. The idea of saying that American customs or culture are objectively superior to others is actually taboo in American society. But why must it be BETTER for you to prefer your own American custom of walking inside homes with shoes? Or to prefer English to Japanese if you know both? "it is entirely possible that an influx of Mexicans into New Mexico or Arizona may culturally and ethnically shift those regions and make them to view themselves as "Mexican" and see the USA as a foreign occupier. A movement for liberation might change the political boundaries of the region." My opponent is once more descending into two dimensional, them - and - us thinking, and interestingly it may be used against him from the other side - what if the Mexicans who immigrated to the US were not patriots, and thus saw no reason to change the border? Would that not be an argument against patriotism? But going back to my earlier point concerning the US, it is precisely the patriotic paranoia that says that fences must be built to stop a minor influx of immigrants from entering the country that causes conflicts like the wars between Mexico and the US in the 1800s - and my question is this, if my opponent believes that immigration is bad, does he support the American settlers who originally settled in Mexican lands (in the 1800s) and then claimed that they should be part of the US? And more importantly, why are they more justified in living in Arizona than the Mexicans who originally conquered it, or going back further, the First Nations who lived on it originally? "This is also seen in the disputed region of Northern Ireland. It makes sense that it should be a part of Eire, but the dominant culture there is Scottish rather than Irish. It is inconceivable to view this as illogical because each person belongs to his or her ethnic or cultural group. It's a part of human nature." The conflict in northern Ireland is more of a religious nature than an ethnic one, but once more my opponent makes a basic assumption - that somehow an individual must "belong" to a certain ethnic or cultural group, rather than be an individual. Counterculture and such have long disproven this concept. Also, in this example opponent has confused the cause with the result - surely it is patriotism towards Eire that has caused the northern Irish to want to secede? Surely it is patriotism to Britain that causes the northern Scots - Irish to want to remain part of Britain - otherwise, there would be no ethnic conflict, as there is none in other parts of the world where different ethnic groups are capable of thriving alongside one another. India is a perfect example of how different cultures are capable or coalescing peacefully. "In the case of Rome, the imperial ethnicity was Italian. While non-Romans may have been granted citizenship, they were simply part of the state and not actually considered true-blooded "Romans." My opponent confuses my previous statement, that a non - Italian would certainly be capable of being patriotic towards Rome and even committing mass slaughter in her name - with ethnic distinction. What my opponent seems to be saying here is that patriotism now only concerns one's own cultural and ethnic group, and the state is not involved at all, which completely undermines the original definition of the term! Therefore what my opponent is really saying is that patriotism works if you're personal identity, ethnicity, and language coalesces directly with everyone else in the state, and that otherwise (as, according to my opponent, in Rome) it is meaningless. Since nobody is exactly the same as everyone else, my opponent is basically claiming that patriotism is meaningless. "But murder would inevitably happen, and hereditary monarchies eventually result in abuse and ignorance." I can now use the same argument my opponent used against me, to similar effect. How do you know that murde would inevitably happen? Just as in terms of patriotism, one cannot be sure that racism would invariably happen. The same goes (and even more significantly) for hereditary monarchies. The country of Jordan is a perfect example of how hereditary monarchies do not necessarily invariably end in abuse and ignorance. "That is not what I am suggesting at all. My point was that since ideological differences caused the problems, they do not require patriotism to exist." Ideological differences caused the massacres of North American aboriginals? Of the Gauls? "I could support my country without believing that it was justified in all of its wars or actions." But what if it was not justified in any? "I was specifically referring to ethical or political ideologies (rather than patriotism)." Patriotism is ethical, otherwise we wouldn't be debating it! "Ethnicity vs. Nation" How can you be patriotic towards a country you weren't even born in? And what if you happened to prefer some of Dutch culture, but have no Dutch ancestry. Should you be a Dutch patriot then?