So we're agreed, then, that the emotions being FORGOTTEN is something you regard as preferable.
To which I'd say - as an example of how unjust such a viewpoint is -- should grieving families now have no further right to grieve ? In your opinion, are they wrong to ?
Getting back, for a moment, to my Auschwitz example of earlier. Would you 'prefer to have a conversation not driven by emotion' on that subject ? If it were a conversation with a Holocaust survivor, would you much rather that said survivor not 'hold any emotion' about what he or she had gone through ? If 'yes' ...
... BY WHAT RIGHT WOULD YOU REQUIRE SUCH A THING ?
Equally with 9/11, a far more recent atrocity. Would you 'ban' a loved one of a victim of that attack from conversing with you about it, because it might be an 'emotional' exchange ??
Americans have a right to feel what they do. Who are you to stand in judgment over them about it ?
Is it because you'd rather they obeyed a certain 'PC imperative', which requires the neutralisation of any and all impetus in further taking on the evil that spawned that attack ? H'mm .. ??