Google+ Followers

sábado, 9 de diciembre de 2017

American Revolution:
An inevitable consequence? 
In this essay I am going to discuss about how important the American Revolution was in the development of the British colonies during the eighteenth century and also see if it was an unavoidable fact or not in the evolution of themselves. With this in mind, this essay will be seen from two different perspectives: the American and the English one. Moreover, my proposition is to see the change of mentality of the colonials regarding to Great Britain.

            According to Knott the paradox of the mainland colonies is that they were increasingly becoming more culturally integrated to Great Britain on the very eve of the independence. The Seven Years’ War transformed the idea of a decentralized British Empire into a relation based in trade, military alliance and the administration by a protector-king. This change of mentality would later affect British literature during the Romantic period, when there was a big nationalistic movement because of the British Empire. This was the reason why colonialists claimed their British identity, which allowed in among other freedoms: loyalty to the crown in the British Parliament and the practice of Protestantism. The rise of professions, the spread of newspapers, new commercial trades and the idea of social aspirations brought eastern colonies to a bigger proximity with Britain. The devotion to the British royalty doing similar festivities also provoked a similar sensibility to the crown. [1]
Nevertheless, as Knott says in his book, British ideas used in Great Britain against their own monarchy as “no taxation without representation” or “liberty and property” were after used by colonial patriots between the decades of 1750 and 1760 that collected the complaints of the colonists of the Thirteen Colonies towards the British authorities. All this sentimentality combined with the absence of any type of aristocracy and no frontier experience, as in the case of America, brought to the elite and middle-class colonial society from the 1760s, a revolutionary and reformist spirit, that is to say, the idea of becoming a nation (medicine and print will be crucial transatlantic conduits to make this sensibility possible).
In the case of America this new sensibility divided the population in two different bands. On one side there were, as I mentioned before, the patriots, people of the American colonies who wanted to gain the independence from Britain creating instead of this, the United States. These states will be composed by the thirteen American colonies. And on the other side, the loyalists, people who wanted to stay part of Great Britain and conserved their British citizenship. Loyalists will be a fundamental piece for the mediation between Britain and the colony.[2]
Patriots
In relation to what Spalding says, patriots at the beginning of the American Revolution were conscious that their Puritan ancestors were already looking for their freedom when they first came to America. They considered themselves as the descendants of Oliver Cromwel’s army, Cromwel and Puritan army appeared in a time in which army conflicts were very common. Thomas Jefferson was one of the main precursors of this belief in which"the laws of nature and of nature's god” (The Declaration of Independence) preserved the Puritan tradition. Moreover, not only Jefferson and his patriot colleagues were aware of this revolutionary Puritan provenance, also loyalists, who dissolved the House of Burgesses on May 26, 1774, when patriots were illegally planning their revolutionary movement. This means that since that moment all these Puritan ideas came to play a very important role for the revolution. Paradoxically, this religion, which once pretended to be used to reform the Anglicanism in England (really approached to royal power), was now being used against them.[3]
Boston Massacre
In the military aspect of the Revolution it’s important to mention the Massacre of Boston, an incident between the population of Boston and the 29th regiment of the British army in America. The conflict happened because Boston inhabitants didn’t like the presence of majesty’s troops in their cities, so they organised a riot against them (pretending to take king’s chest and kill its sentries). Despite this fact, Preston, the leader of the regiment, told soldiers not to fire against the population. Unfortunately, in the middle of the protest with the shouting, the American inhabitants throwing snowballs and using clubs against soldiers, some British army soldiers fired without orders to the population, killing three people and two more people later, because of wounds. Preston was judged, but finally found innocent. This event would be another fact to take into account to understand the mentality of the colony was changing towards Britain.[4]
Loyalists
On the other band of the Revolution there were the loyalists, who, according to Calhoon, were in the middle of all these changes, being still loyal to England. The most important revolutionary conflicts appeared because of Great Britain’s decisions in the 1750s and the 1760s of centralizing the territory control over the colonies. Decisions as the Stamp Act[5] or the use of Townshed duties revenue to pay Crown officials’ salaries were some of the conflicts that loyalists supported. These important colonials held positions as royal governors, judges and attorneys generals. Nevertheless, loyalists were in the very difficult situation of defending British parliamentary statutes, which they found harmful for the well-being of the Empire, as for instance: prosecuting patriot activists or using British troops to enforce civil laws, and at the same time, wanting to preserve a peaceful stability in the relationship between the colony and the mainland. [6]
Moreover, doing these actions, they also had to promote crown ideas and beliefs, as for example, parliamentary supremacy of the mainland, the British Empire being the Mother country of the colonies or the colonial prosperity thanks to British credit, among other ideas. Loyalists didn’t believe in the British parliamentary supremacy, but they considered British legislature and Constitution as the bases of the British Empire. Conscious of the commercial fragility within the Empire, they protected British militia and supported commercial trade with Great Britain. Loyalists, therefore, tried to avoid an ideological conflict between the Crown and the colonies. When it finally occurred with the incident of the Boston Tea Party[7] at the very end of 1773 they began to see the big alienation between the colony and the empire.[8]
The Revolution did not only affect British institutions in America, but it also extended to all domains in which there was a colonial-imperial relationship. As well, it is important to mention that The Revolution occurred in a really diverse society composed by European immigrants and their descendants, Native American Indians, African American slaves and free slaves. So when the royal governor of Virginia called slaves of rebellious planters to win their liberty, eight hundreds of them fought for the Empire. They even feared that thousands of others would also want to fight in order to win their liberty. In the case of Native Indians, British cultivated them for the purpose of fighting against the French and they also discovered that through diplomacy they could obtain Indian lands needed for the colonial expansion (Indians feared between being British allies or staying neutral).[9]
The Declaration of Independence
The moment of the Revolution was arriving and all colonies need to agree to declare the independence of the colonies, it is for this reason that during the spring of 1776, localities and groups of ordinary Americans, as New York mechanics or South Carolina grand Juries among others, adopted the resolutions of the independence. This encouraged the Continental Congress to assemble a five-member committee to draft a formal declaration of independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote it and the other four members supervised and edited it. Radical ideas as “all men are created equal having inalienable rights” or the “Declaration of Sentiment appeared in it. Despite the fact of being so utopian (because American History shows the repeated injuries done to this declaration along its history), the 4th July 1776 the United States of America declared the independence from Great Britain. In this declaration they explained the reasons why they wanted to be independent: one of the main reasons is that they believed that British government is not untouchable, and when it doesn’t represent all the population, it needs to be changed. Other reasons were the unfair taxes imposed to them, the King of England (they considered he was a history of repeated injuries), or British aristocracy.[10]
This essay has discussed about the different points of view on the causes of the Revolution. Despite all the causes I have mentioned throughout the entire essay, it is   true that nothing in history is inevitable and America could still be part of the British Empire. However, taking into the account how Great Britain treated its colonies, the absence of an a hierarchic society, the wish of American people to become a nation and the fact of being so far away from the United Kingdom, made impossible that this relationship would have continued as it was before the Revolution started. Naturally, the American Revolution served as a precedent not only for other British colonies, but also for the rest of them around the world, changing their mentality towards the colonizers.

Bibliography
An Account of a late military massacre at Boston, or The consequences of quartering troops in a populous town. Boston: Digital History Eighteenth Century Collections Online, 1770.
Calhoon, Robert M., Barnes, Timothy M., and Davis, Robert Scott. Tory Insurgents : The Loyalist Perception and Other Essays. Carolina: Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2010.
Declaration of Independence . Digital History, 1776.
Knott, Sara. Sensibility and the American Revolution. North Carolina: Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012.
Spalding, James C. “Loyalist as Royalist, Patriot as Puritan: The American Revolution as a Repetition of the English Civil Wars.” Cambridge University Press , September 1976: 329-340.




[1]Knott, Sara. Sensibility and the American Revolution. North Carolina: Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012. 1 
[2]Knott, Sensibility and the American Revolution, 2-3
[3]Spalding, James C. “Loyalist as Royalist, Patriot as Puritan: The American Revolution as a Repetition of the English Civil Wars.” Cambridge University Press , September 1976: 329-340.
[4]Account of the Boston Massacre, 1770
[5]Act of the British Parliament that imposed a direct tax on the American colonies and that required the use of British stamps and British stamp papersin many colonial printed manuscripts.
[6]Calhoon, Robert M., Barnes, Timothy M., and Davis, Robert Scott. Tory Insurgents : The Loyalist Perception and Other Essays. Carolina: Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2010. Introduction xii
[7]An act of protest in which the American settlers destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company of Great Britain due to the high taxes imposed by the British and in response of the Boston Massacre. It is also considered as one of the biggest precedents  of the Independence War
[8]Calhoon, Introduction to: Try Insurgents, xiii- xiv
[9]Calhoon, Introduction to: Try Insurgents, xiii- xiv
[10]Declaration of Independence, 1776

domingo, 5 de noviembre de 2017

The origin of the Irish Nationalism and its evolution after the Irish War of Independence

In this essay, I am going to discuss about the origin of Ireland as a nation and how the nationalism evolved after the Irish War of Independence against Britain, dividing the essay in two main parts. With this in mind, in this essay we will always take into account three main aspects: socio-economic, religious, political and historical, so that we can have the context and the reasons why it happened. This essay will also be seen from two different perspectives: the British because Britain was the nation which dominated Ireland until the Irish nationalism emerged, and the other is the Irish, seeing how their thinking was changing until they decided to become a nation.
When did it begin?
There are many events in history that could have determined the origin of the Irish nationalism, that is to say, the beginning of Irish history as a nation. But when can one talk about Irish nationalism? In 1904, a man called Eoin MacNeill, an Irish scholar and also politician, asked himself that question giving a lecture. He said it could be considered that its beginning was in the Gaelic or pre-Normand period, in other words, a traditional period of Ireland. Or even it could have started in the 16th century, in a revolutionary period. (Boyce, 2003:15)
Other aspects that he also took into account were the religious ones: on the one hand, during the 1640s when there was a big Catholic movement and, on the other hand, with the Protestants of the eighteenth century. And last but not least important, the author refers to the modern aspect, as for instance, the socio-political change of the 19thcentury of Ireland. It is for this reason that he says that a historian must decide between searching in the more ancient past writing in a theological way or beginning in a more modern period forgetting other historical events.(Boyce, 2003:15).
Therefore now Boyce, bearing in mind all these aspects, first defines the term nationalism to come later to the Irish case. Nationalism, according to him, is the feeling or belief of a community of people that share the same origin (with the same history and literature), that usually have a common language that differs from other nations (not always) and who might have the same religion. Consequently, he argues that this feeling would take on more importance in Ireland in the last quarter of the eighteenth century with the Acts of Union of 1801 with Britain. (Boyce, 2003:16)        
The Act of Union (1st January 1801)
According to the author Larking in A History of Ireland, and as a result of the French Revolution in 1789, Britain would take advantage of this fact and would have the reason to unify the Kingdom of Ireland to its territory. The most revolutionary Irish leaders of the 19th century would see this union as a given and would work all this century (within the strict possibilities that Britain allowed them) against this union. The Union banned any possible representation of Irish people in their parliament, which had achieved more autonomy since 1782, forcing the representatives of the Irish parliament to go to the British one, in Westminster.(Larkin H., 2014:9)
From the British point of view, this was an historic and nonviolent act, and it would give Ireland a period of stability, but the most important thing for them was that it was the last step of a process that began with the annexation of Wales in 1535, Scotland in 1707 and finished with Ireland in 1801. (Larkin H., 2014:10)
Nevertheless, for Ireland it wasn’t a “real pacific period” and in time it divided both cultures and communities. England would try to convince Ireland in all the possible aspects showing the benefits of the Union, in the economic aspect they would explain the benefits of a more solid economy that would promote Ireland’s economic growth. However, having such unequal economies was very difficult to have parity in both of them, so it wasn’t as good as they expected (and furthermore if we include that there was a period of corruption).(Larkin H., 2014:15)
From the religious point of view, Larkin says that Ireland was composed of a majority of Catholics (for each Protestant there were three Catholics, proportion which would be just the opposite in the case of the Union between Britain and Ireland, that is, three against twelve, having British more options to control them. It is for this reason that Britain didn’t like the idea of having a Catholic parliament in Ireland. (Larkin H., 2014:15) Despite the fact that there was a Protestant ascendancy with the two major Protestant parties growing more and more (the Crown and the Tory party), the author McCaffrey in The Irish Question : Two Centuries of Conflict says that the Catholic majority refused to accept this pact because they believed that they would be in a huge inferiority. (McCaffrey, 2015:3)
However, it was more than an ideology which was counting for this union according to Larkin’s opinion. On the one hand, there were the Protestants that, even being a small group, monopolised land, politics and society. On the other hand, the Catholics were landless, “politically underprivileged”, poor etc. and controlled by the Protestant elite. This meant that if Protestants were for the Union, the whole Ireland would be part of Britain, and in fact that is what happened. Bearing in mind all these aspects, Catholic masses would have a serious problem of identity, partly because of the dependence on Britain and partly also because they couldn’t be taken into account as a nation. (Larkin H., 2014:4)
In conclusion, this period will create an Irish national sentiment, based mostly in a strong hatred against the British predominance in their territory. This feeling wouldn’t end until after the Irish War of Independence when Ireland was recognised as a country. This would, as well, affect in a devastating way its poor economic situation, which would trigger the Great Famine of Ireland, also known as The Irish potato famine (1845-1852) and one of the biggest migrations of its history. And, last but not least, from the religious point of view, the Catholics would have serious problems (especially in the 19th century), because of the Anti-Catholic laws of Britain that abolished their human rights like: voting, having a good education or job etc. being even persecuted.
After the Irish War of Independence: The Anglo-Irish Treaty
After the war, in December 1921 England and Ireland would sign The Anglo-Irish Treaty, despite the fact that they did not have much interest in having peace in both territories. This could be explained because in the last stages of the war many violent acts took place, according to what the author Michael Hopkinson says in The Irish War of Independence. The terms discussed in this treaty were: the safeguard of the defence of Ireland, the future of Ulster (an Irish Protestant region formed by six counties that was in favour of the union with Britain), the granting of fiscal autonomy and the self-domain in their twenty-six counties. (Hopkinson, 2002: 177) This treaty, signed by the provisional Irish government and by the British Prime Minister Lloyd George and his asembly of negotiators, had an acceptable degree of independence for his supporters. Nonetheless, for others there would be something missing and that was the partition of Ireland (despite the fact that there was little to discuss because they had already done it that same year). As well, this treaty was not accepted by those who voted against (the anti-Treaties or republicans) as it was inconceivable for them and, therefore, they refused to recognize the Irish Free State. Nevertheless, for the big majority it represented one more step for the Irish freedom, even if with this agreement they would continue to be subordinated to Britain in some economical aspects (Curtis, 2010: 106-107)
Northern and Southern Ireland
Meanwhile in Ireland, as I have mentioned before, the division of the territory affected the region of Ulster (situated in Northern Ireland) and the rest of Ireland. The conflict of Northern Ireland or The Troubles is believed to have a religious origin between Catholics and Protestants, but according to the author Joanne McEvoy the origin lays somewhere else: the national identity. Whilst Nationalists regard the Republic of Ireland as their ‘motherland’, the Unionists consider Britain their country, as they have very different objectives: Unionists want to be part of the United Kingdom and Nationalists want a united Ireland.Of course, in Ireland the religion divisions have always been explicit. It is known that during this period there were many cases of sectarianism because of this issue, but these discrepancies also coincide with other economical differences, historical facts and national political identity.(McEvoy, 2008: 8)
IRA
According to Andrew Sanders, the IRA or Irish Republic Army was considered heir of the Irish Volunteers, a small group of Irish volunteers that took part in the First World War. The Irish Volunteers split from the National Volunteers in 1914 and, encouraged by the Irish Parliamentary Party leader (John Redmond), would give their support to the Allies at the beginning of the war. The remainder was supposed to be a home guard in the Irish territory, but Britain refused to train a disorganised movement which couldn’t provide front-line soldiers, apart from the concern that they could provoke as they could have been used against them in nationalistic terms. As the war progressed worse, news about its divisions in their army arrived in Ireland and the threat of having to go to war increased, whilst support given to the National Volunteers was dicreasing. At the same time, the Irish Volunteers were becoming more and more numerous. That was specially influenced by Britain that created a Republican division in which the most important thing was the pragmatic significance of the war, in other words, what they will achieve at the end of the war. (Sanders, 2011: 1-2)
This movement would continue after the war until the decade of 1970s, when Nothern Ireland would suffer one of the most violent periods in its history. As a result of The ‘Troubles’, over two thousand people would be murdered and half of them in the hands of the Provisional IRA. In August 1969, the Official IRA would be created and it would split with the Provisional one. This movement was established because of the impotence experienced during that decade and with the purpose of being able to change it into a deadly insurgency fast. Nevertheless, they also began to have political activity, as for instance, claiming the recognitions of the parliaments of Stormont or Westminster, but having an extreme socialism orientation. (Sanders, 2011: 45)
The tendency towards politics of the IRA would start as a peace process, according to Sanders, that will be established during the following decades and continued until the 1990s when the IRA would make its final movement with two ceasefires. All this, added with the internal factionism of the movement and the transition of the Irish-American military support to political intervention, would finally end with the most abrupt period in the history of Nothern Ireland. (Sanders, 2011: 191) The beginning of the 21st century was in an uneasy calm, even if the final year of the previous century had only eight deaths, there was a straight relation between violence and politics that wouldn’t end till the last paramilitary group in Nothern Ireland, the LVF (Loyalist Volunteer Force) was disolved, arresting in October 2005 its leader. (Sanders, 2011: 226-227)
To sum up with this second part of the essay, it could be said that the period between the Irish War of Independence until our days was even more violent in some decades that the war itself. Having two main territorial and political isues, the complete independence of Ireland from Britain and the internal territorial division in the Irish territory, dividing it into two parts: Northern and Southern Ireland. Likewise, I have also discussed about the biggest paramilitary movement emerged in Ireland in the last century, the IRA, which I have considered very important for the understanding of the Irish Nationalism, because it would be crucial in the conflict of Nothern Ireland.



 

Works cited
Boyce, D. G. (2003). Nationalism in Ireland (3). London: Routledge.
Curtis, K. (2010). Anthem Irish Studies : P. S. O'Hegarty (1879-1955) : Sinn Féin Fenian (1). London: Anthem Press.
Hopkinson, M. (2002). The Irish War of Independence. Montreal: MQUP.
Larkin, H. (2014). Anthem Perspectives in History : A History of Ireland 1800–1922 Theatres of Disorder? (1). London: Anthem Press.
McCaffrey, L. J. (2015). The Irish Question : Two Centuries of Conflict (2). Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
McEvoy, J. (2008). Politics Study Guides EUP : Politics of Northern Ireland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Sanders, A. (2011). Inside the IRA : Dissident Republicans and the War for Legitimacy (1). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.


lunes, 28 de agosto de 2017

APPLICATION TO THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH


The reason why I’m applying to study in the University of Edinburgh for doing my Erasmus year is because it will be the best opportunity to study abroad that I will ever have again.I chose particularly Edinburgh because the city brings me a lot of good memories and its magnificent university.

Six years ago and also this year I was there, and I can only say that nothing had changed during those years, it was as beautiful as I remembered it (except for the tram obviously). Both times I went with my father’s school for a week to Mackenzie School in Leith in order to improve my English. In the mornings we used to have classes and in the afternoon we took advantage to visit the city, or other cities, such as Stirling.

I also want to study in the University of Edinburgh because it’s considered to be one of the best universities in the UK, which I find really positive for my degree (English Philology). As I’m also studying French and German, I knew that Edinburgh University offers me more possibilities to continue learning them. However, the most important matter why I applied for this city is because I want to improve my English during my Erasmus year in order to be able to pass the exams for the Cambridge Certiicate of Proficiency in English (if it’s possible), which is most relevant for our degree.

IIn this university a high level of marks is required, which I find important in order to be competitive. However, doing the application we found a problem with a subject made specially for visiting students that was perfect for our degree, but that is now unavailable because it’s split up in two parts, I don’t know if it can be possible to change it, as it would be key in our degreeApart from this, I think there is a wide range of subjects to choose among, but I find really interesting those related to the Scottish culture. That's why I would like to attend them.

Finally, I feel that by doing this Erasmus I will improve my career options and give myself an even greater opportunity to work. Moreover, the fact of going to a city that I already know will give me more confidence to adapt myself as soon as possible.

lunes, 19 de junio de 2017

Three events in my life

There are many events that have had a big effect on me. Most of them are related to languages, because I love learning them so much and I also consider them as the key that opens the door to a new world, culture and customs. It’s for this reason that I’m going to mention three of these events in which languages will be present.

The first event that influenced me was the moment when I decided to study French for the first time in my life. I was about ten years old when my father said one day “Would you like to study French with me? It will be funny!”. At that moment, I was really excited about the idea of studying a new language, besides English obviously, so I accepted. My father taught me the language for two years until the big day arrived. He told me that he wanted us, my brother and I, to go to a French secondary school in Málaga. However, in spite of passing the entry exam, the school told us that we couldn’t be in the class we should be regarding our age, because we hadn’t studied there before and it would be difficult for us to adapt to their level. Anyway, it was a positive experience and I consider that now I know why my father wanted us to have this experience, which had a big impact on me.

Secondly, I’ll write about the moment when I passed my English and French B2 exams at the Official Language School in Motril at the same time. I was in the last year of the secondary school with all the exams of “Selectividad” (the exams to enter the university) and I also had to study for my language school exams. I was really busy at that time and I had to do fourteen exams in eleven days. The exams at the language school consisted of four parts (Listening, writing, oral expression and reading comprehension) and you would have to resit other exams in September if you failed any of the parts. As I expected I passed some parts in June and fortunately the rest, in September. These two weeks were two of the hardest weeks in my life and it’s for this reason that I included them in this list.

Last but not least I’ll write about my first day at university. For this event, I don’t know why, but I was really nervous. Like many students in my class, I don’t live in Granada, but the difference is that I live a bit farther from Granada. In my case I live in Motril with my family. Therefore, the fact that I had to take a coach every day to go to university was one of the reasons why I was so nervous: I didn’t know if I would arrive in time or if I would stop at the correct bus stop. Moreover, the university is not a secondary school and there is a big change between them.

I hope you liked my three stories. See you soon!

jueves, 15 de junio de 2017

MOTRIL

You have recently started working as a tourist guide in your area. You must now write a report for your boss, describing the area, discussing what it has to offer tourists and emphasizing both its good and bad points.

In this report I would like to offer Motril as an interesting tourist point. It is a city located in the south coast of Granada province between Torrenueva and Salobreña. Motril is not characterized by its trial sector. Instead, it has a valuable fishing fleet and a productive agriculture. This city is also special because of its humid tropical climate with warm winters and hot summers. All these things make Motril the perfect city to go sightseeing throughout the year.

First of all, I want to point out what Motril’s history can provide tourists. Motril’s first historical remains are Muslim. Their presence is reflected in the structure of the city i.e. in its narrowed streets. We can also see some remains of a wall built at that time. In addition, it is important to mention that Motril has two main churches. The oldest one, situated on top of a hill, was built in the 17th century and the newest, the most important one, which is situated in the city centre.

Another reason to come to Motril is its gastronomy. Considered a tropical city, it offers tourists a great variety of fruits. Some of them are avocado, custard apple or mango. Moreover, as Motril is next to the coast, it brings the opportunity to tourists to eat good-quality fresh fish. Restaurants and bars are the best places to taste all these typical Mediterranean dishes. Another option to try them would be buying all these fresh aliments in the market place.

Nevertheless, there also some bad points to take into account when visiting Motril. One of its main problems is pollution. People usually throw garbage on the streets, despite the fact that there are many waste containers and waste bins. Furthermore, due to its humidity in summer, people usually sweat a lot needing more water than normal. Another alternative to go to the beach or the municipal pool to refresh themselves. The last bad point about Motril is that people from there often speak very loudly.

To sum up, I consider Motril would be really interesting for tourists to know. Despite the fact that there is a lot of pollution in the streets, I think that its history, gastronomy, and climate make the city worth visiting. People who already got to know Motril were impressed to see it and think of coming back again.

sábado, 20 de mayo de 2017

What are the advantages and disadvantages of being an only child?


Being an only child is an issue that can provoke many opinions regarding the point of view you see it from. It is obvious that it can have many downsides, but these days there are many advantages that can come to our mind.

Thinking first about the advantages of being an only child, there may be many reasons for parents nowadays to have just one child. The very first advantage is the cost of the things: clothing, food etc. Another important advantage is that parents can dedicate more time to their children education, because they only have one. Moreover, there are more possibilities of doing activities together as there is more time to spend.

However, there are also many disadvantages for these children if they don’t have any siblings. I consider the most important issue is that they can’t socialize as much as children with brothers or sisters do. In addition to this, they cannot have fun when they’re at home, if their parents work. And the last but not least important is that they usually think more about themselves, being sometimes a bit selfish, as they aren’t used to sharing things with anybody.

Bearing in mind all these bad and good points I’m going to write about my own experience. In my case, I have a brother and I reckon that it’s really good to have him. We have similar ages and we have the opportunity of doing many things together. Both, my brother and I, play tennis every Saturday, go swimming three times a week and play computer games together. I also help him in his homework if it’s necessary because he’s younger than me and he wants to study the same degree as me. And what’s most important we get on well!