I agree, Fausto, that this entire thread is inappropriate. But I think this issue of "sensitivity" needs to be addressed. First off, if America has over-reated to the whole 9/11 business (which is my opinion, by the way), it's because the American people were being very 'sensitive' to what had happened. That stands to reason, doesn't it? I also object to the whole notion that Europeans are somehow more sensitive. The entire history of Europe has been loaded with bloodshed and hubris from day 1, and clear on up to the year 1945. It took outside intervention - foreign invasion, in other words - to bring the fighting to a stop. Since then, America and NATO has acted as the world's police department, and certainly for the protection of western Europe. But terrorism of the type that Bin Ladin and Al Queda have been peddling effects Europe far more than it does the U.S. Northern Europeans, in spite of their reputation for great amounts of tolerance, have not been entirely successful in dealing with immigrants from the south. Thus, they're having to learn - the hard way - what America has had to deal with, and adjust to, since our birth as a nation. It ain't easy! As a result, I think the U.S. has far more religious tolerance than pretty much any place else. It's not at all uncommon to see churches next to synagogues, next to mosques, next to a Greek Orthodox chruch, etc. I also think we have the best judicial system anywhere, but that's really getting off the track. Perhaps this need for tolerance also makes us a bit insensitive at times. If so, I think it's a fair trade-off. Think of Don Rickles, whose message was really 'inclusivity' - to be 'inclusive'.
In Afghanistan, America has been left holding the bag for much of the fighting. But, thank goodness, NATO and other European forces have been stepping up to take their share of the responsibility. European people may not like it, but trust me, NOBODY likes it! Our efforts there may not succeed in the long run anyway. But I've also talked to soldiers who say that they don't want to give up on Afghanistan either. I think that demonstrates a certain type of sensitivity! I watched a public television show on Danish troops in Afghanistan, and they don't want to throw in the towel at all. I would also like to point out that 'sensitive' Europeans did pretty much nothing to stop the senseless bloodshed that was happening in the Balkans, just recently. It actually took Clinton having to bomb Belgrade to try to bring the fighting to a stop - a totally lopsided affair, I might add (given that Serbia inherited the almost the entire former Yugoslavian army, and the Bosnians pretty much had nothing to defend themselves with). I wouldn't exactly call that a proud page in recent European history.
I think you asked at one point, how Mahler would have reacted to such statements. I think that's a really great question. I can't imagine that Mahler would have been too thrilled over the spectacle of Europe tearing itself apart in 1914, to say nothing of the horrors that came afterwords. Can you deny that? It's one of the 'great ifs' when it comes to speculating on Mahler.
Anyway, I am not trying to beat up Europeans at all. I'm just saying, let's drop this nonsense of any race of people being more 'sensitive' than any other. In my opinion, it's too much sensitivity that has gotten the world into so much trouble to begin with. Dealing with terrorism is EVERYBODY'S problem, and that certainly applies to Europe, with its closer proximity to the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa.
