Chinese glyphs don't really tell a story, any more than the etymology of words in other languages tell a story; if a language was really "more expressive" it should display results consistent with that, such as, for example: it is significantly harder to learn (then we must consider Finnish or Hungarian as more expressive than Chinese, say); also, speakers of it should be significantly more accomplished and as a group occupy a higher standard of living/intellectualism than speakers of other languages; ethnic groups where those languages dominate should be "genetically superior" to ethnic groups where less expressive languages dominate.
Obviously all such tests are problematic haha! :) But I think we can see that by playing such thought experiments there isn't really any difference between all human languages. However, we could compare the "language" of chimps, or other beings who we have ascribed language to, to rank "below" human languages on these scales and see clear and significant trends consistent with the tests, for example, outlined above.
I could go on, but I think it's fairly easy to make various cases for the essential expressive equivalence of large majorities of human languages. And I think it's harmful, abusive and bigoted to pretend superiority of one language/culture over others especially without basis.