I really didn't know how to title this thread but I think it can be a very informative one. I had a pretty heated argument with my fiancee today about 9/11 since she was listening to Spencer Hughes and he was talking about people in NY and NJ and how they somehow feel like victims of 9/11. I lived less than 1 hour car ride from NYC that day. I was in work. I traveled to Perth Amboy that night to eat dinner with my dad who was working in Brooklyn that day and got out of the city just before they closed the bridges thinking it could be our last. I saw the plume of smoke, I heard the military jets and choppers overhead for two days. I knew people who had parents or siblings near or at WTC.
Her argument is I was no more a victim than her, going to school in Cleveland, TN at the time. She thinks it's a disgrace to those directly involved, those who narrowly escaped, arrived to offer aid, or were relatives of the dead or injured. I disagree. Being a geography major I think proximity has entirely everything to do with 9/11. I believe I, as a resident of NJ was more affect and witnessed more in person than anyone in Nebraska or New Mexico could have over the TV. Yes there were endless hours of TV for those to view, and yes I'll give in to the fact that in that first hour any other plane could have hit any other buliding in the country. But I will not accept the argument that my experience is equal to anyone who lived vicariously through Fox News or CNN for 3 days.
So have at it Cyburbia, am I out of line, does proximity in relation to the events of 9/11 matter? Are there different levels of awareness or affect that day had on different parts of the country?