Patriotism is Justifiable

---> P A T R I O T I S M - I S - S U B J E C T I V E. <---"What my opponent fails to recognize here is that the statement "that the subject is the parts" is TRUE! Anything that is made up of separate individual parts IS them, otherwise it could not exist. As a matter of fact, a nation IS a collection of individuals, and should be treated as such. "My opponent now asserts that objects are equivalent to their parts. This is, unfortunately, a fundamentally flawed view. 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. ---> P A T R I O T I S M - I S - N O T - R A C I S M. <---"In preferring something one is certainly suggesting that it is superior. Let us take a parallel situation, in which an individual born into a white community "prefers" whites to blacks. Most of us would consider this racist, however, it is, according to my opponent, acceptable to "prefer" your own nation (that nation BEING the people of your nation) to others - why is this? "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. 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. "Are there not paranoid Republicans who want to build a border fence with Mexico? Are there not stories of "boat people" being sent away from Australia with no supplies and starving in the process? "Cultural assimiliation or demographic threat are very real possibilities. I'm not sure about Australia, but it is entirely possible that an influx of Mexicans into New Mexico or Arizona (which are already influenced by them, with Spanish being taught almost as a second language) 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. This is also seen in the disputed region of Northern Ireland. It makes sense that it should be a part of Ireland proper, but the dominant culture there is Scottish rather than Irish. It is inconcievable to view this as illogical because each person belongs to his or her ethnic or cultural group. It's an essential part of human nature. "Rome was certainly not defined by ethnicity - anyone could become a part of the Roman Empire (and later a full Roman citizen) and many did. ""An empire is a state with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial ethnic group and its culture" [1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...]. In other words, the ruling ethnicity controlled all of the other cultures comprising the empire. 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. "For instance, a Numidian who had full citizenship might be treated equally under the law, but he would still be seen as a Numidian. We can understand this even today. A person of Japanese descent, who speaks only Japanese and understands only Japanese customs is not considered a Frenchman, even if he lives in France and has full citizenship. ---> P A T R I O T I S M - D O E S - N O T - N E C E S S I T A T E - A B S O L U T I S M. <---"By this definition we should repeal all laws. Attempting to commit murder isn't ALWAYS successful, and racism can't be considered bad for being one of the causes of genocide because it doesn't ALWAYS result in genocide. Hell, maybe having a hereditary monarchy isn't so bad because hereditary monarchies CAN be good. "But murder would inevitably happen, and hereditary monarchies eventually result in abuse and ignorance. If we could, say, genetically engineer a more peaceful breed of humans (or simply educate this one out of ignorance) than perhaps such laws wouldn't even be necessary. If there was a some method that could maintaining the honesty and stability of a hereditary monarchy- then why not have one? I argue that if humans become peaceful or enlightened enough to avoid racism or war, then patriotism is most certainly justifiable. We are already on the path to this "enlightenment," seeing as racism is disappearing and war isn't a way of life anymore in most developed countries. "My opponent concedes here that "patriotism was used as a weapon" which goes back to what I mentioned earlier - that the idea in itself is capable of inciting to violence. If not, then why was it used? "Yes, the idea could incite violence, but the examples you cited were caused by ideological differences rather than patriotism itself. "It is ludicrous to suggest that something must happen all the time or none of the time and that there is no in - between. Why do we have constitutions if democracy does not inevitably lead to chaos? "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. Patriotism can exist by itself without violence or ignorance, which mainly occurs under authoritarian regimes or with extreme nationalism. "If my opponent agrees with my statement that it is not always right to stand with one's country, then was it patriotic, for example, to be on the Soviet side in the cold war if one believes that it would benefit America to be Soviet controlled? "I'm not sure I understand the question. I could support my country without believing that it was justified in all of its wars or actions. Even more Conservatives, who are sterotyped as mindless patriots, are starting to oppose the war in Iraq [2. . http://articles.cnn.com...]. "Is patriotism not an ideology? "I was specifically referring to ethical or political ideologies. These can be influenced by culture, but again, many people ignore traditional conceptions of them and support others. "Should you be patriotic to France because it is where you were born, or Belgium because it is where you grew up? "You would have to weigh your ethnicity against your culture. Culture will almost always win. Even with extreme differences, such as a pure African growing up in England, the African would be assimilated into the culture and consider himself English. We observe this in modern African-Americans who are the descendents of slaves. --------I turn the debate over to Con.