. . . China. But in an editorial about the merit of teaching Mandarin in a planned new HISD magnet school, the paper couldn't help itself: It had to say something gratuitously nasty about . . .
. . . America.
After all, America does not have a perfect history, but we can show China that it is possible to be both pro-business and pro-human rights.
(Editorial, "China plan: HISD's Mandarin program good for business, diplomacy," Houston Chronicle, January 3, 2012)
Of course America's "history is not perfect, whatever that might mean. That's a strawman's strawman. Perfection is a theological standard, not a standard for measuring the rough affairs of this world of woe. But what's the point of knocking America in this editorial?
Answer: To credentialize the editorialist; to demonstrate that he is no flag-waving American exceptionalist. He may have knocked China for authoritarianism, but -- hey -- America's history is not perfect either. Relativism on parade.
America's history is not perfect, but it's sure as heck better than China's. If something needs to be said, why not say that?
Comments