In the 1970s, the international human rights entered its golden age. Latin America, as an area having experienced severe human rights violations during the military dictatorship, became the center of the international human rights movements. In the same period, China, ending the chaotic state of cultural revolution, also started its human rights discourse by beginning the open up reform. This paper aims to compare the human rights movements in China and Latin America by reading important primary sources of human rights movements and analyzing them. Unlike Latin American human rights, the Chinese human rights movements focus more on economic rights, emphasizing more on collective welfare instead of particular groups, and are propelled mainly by government.

The realists and liberalists understand the world from different perspectives and tend to explain the whole world in a divergent way. Here comes the eternal question of the academic circle. Who can explain the world better, realists or liberalists? This question is significant because it helps us to comprehend how world politics function and the current political dilemmas better. We argue that realism can explain history better than liberalism. Constant competitions were always presented through the frequent conflicts between countries. It is an irreversible and most unpreventable nature of the world. Through studying the theories, we are able to examine the world more systematically and logically. The classifications of the subject rationale the complicated and distinct historical events. Moreover, following the steps and various ideas of former scholars allows us to develop our own understanding of the world and determine our perspective.

According to previous scholarship, China’s Xueheng literary school in the early 20th century is an antagonist to the then prevalent New Culture Movement as the former is claimed to insist on a conservation of traditional thoughts. Matthew Arnold’s thinking is a major source of one representative figure of the Xueheng school, Miu Fenglin. A comparative analysis of the literary thinking of Matthew Arnold and Miu Fenglin suggests that both thinkers have actually shed light on how literature should be relevant to its time and transcend it with a pursuit of truth. With references to the thinkers’ respective social backgrounds, the paper contends that their literary thoughts offer critical perspectives into the societies. By bringing in the cases of Miu Fenglin and Matthew Arnold, the paper also intends to further the discussion of the role of literature in the society.

The rivalry between nomadic armies and the Chinese empire in the Far East never ceased. In order to be able to counter the threat from nomadic armies, the Chinese court poured huge funds into military organizations, which caused tremendous financial pressure on the state. Thus, obtaining more taxes or wealth through new means and ensuring that the overwhelmed people did not overthrow the dynasty became the problem to be solved by successive Chinese dynasties. This paper mainly discusses the tea tax system invented by the Tang Dynasty in the face of the pressure from the nomadic armies of the Anshi Rebellion, the tea monopoly trade method, and the benefits to the court brought by the tea and horse trade. The pressure from the nomadic armies kept the Chinese court from becoming arrogant and letting down its guard, forcing it to invent new institutions to evolve its system constantly. However, as wars became more frequent, taxes became heavier, the economic system collapsed and organized uprisings against the central government. The Tang empire failed to maintain its economic system in the later time and finally collapsed in chaos.