posted by Sarah
it is possible to be part of multiple nations simultaneously. however, in times of crisis, it is essential that loyalty to your country of residence take priority over any other loyalties.
To what extent should we embrace the perspectives reflected in the source?
I would like to present arguments for for: so I agree with the source
I've spent more than 5 hours trying to find evidence. I am still unsure of the evidence that can support the source.
Being loyal to the country you live in is important. The times of crisis that I will like to focus on is war or natural disaster.
Obviosuly when there will be a natural disaster, you will be loyal to the country you're living in.they will provide help for you. In new of war, you will support your country as it is responsible for your safety, security and liberty. However, the loyalties might contend with other loyalties you have.
I understand where I'm getting at. I'm having trouble finding specific and strong arguments.
May I please get help?
I gave you one yesterday, a real-life example. I won't give you any more. Use your imagination to think of some hypothetical situations. What if someone was in a foreign country to work, but her family was in her native country? When her host country goes to war with her native country, where her family lives, what should she do? Use your imagination!
I can use my imagination to think of many random scenarios and examples. It needs to be a part of social studies grade 11 curriculum. It can't be what if this happened what would she do. If I were supposed to do that, I could have written a position paper real quick
And the source is saying in terms of crises...
If you need case studies to argue your case, I'm not sure where to find them. There are stories about individual refugees from war and natural disasters, but they are not easy to "google". See if any of these sites give you any ideas. https://www.google.com/search?q=case+studies+of+people+with+divided+loyalties+in+war.&ie=&oe=