I don't see that at all. It certainly isn't true for me. I think you are confusing patriotism with nationalism.
No, I can quite easily see someone adopting a nationalist position on humanitarian grounds. (I think that they would be almost certainly mistaken in this, but that's another matter.) A patriot, on the other hand, pledges his loyalty to the nation as a point of principle, as something done for its own sake and regardless of the well-being of those of other nationalities, which makes it an essentially anti-humanitarian position. If somebody is sincerely committed to humanity itself, and I don't doubt that a lot of self-described "patriots" are, then it seems to me that their alleged patriotism is less a point of principle and more a rhetorical affection.
Or perhaps a sense of pride and accomplishment of being part of something that makes up your identity as a human being?
I don't have a problem taking pride in their culture or origins, but patriotism is an explicit affirmation of loyalty to "the nation" above other human beings. That's problematic in a way which enjoying bagpipe music simply is not.
Now don't force your definitions upon others.
I didn't realise that's what I
was doing. If I'm wrong, and a patriot will consistently put other human beings above his nation, then patriotism is nothing more than an affection, and it doesn't seem that most self-described patriots would be over-eager about accepting that sort of claim.
Patriotism means being proud of your country (hometown, school) achievements.
Implying that your country is better than the others is nationalism.
"My country built new advanced spaceship" - patriotism.
"My country #1" - nationalism.
See, I don't get that. It's a definition of "nationalism" that you only ever seem to encounter in the specific context of distinguishing it from "patriotism", and it's completely incoherent with the term is otherwise used. Very few Scottish nationalists actually think "Scotland #1", for example, but that doesn't mean that they are not nationalists, or that they are not generally described as such. It's a definition that seems to exist purely as a tortured way for liberal nationalists to suggest some fundamental distinction between themselves from right-wing nationalists.