Originally Posted by
Badenoch
There is a difference between book knowledge and first-hand experience. One doesn't compensate for the other but together they are unbeatable. You can stuff your nose into a book but it is hardly the same as being there yourself.
"Oh you read about it? Well, I was there."
It's the difference between being well-read and well-travelled.
Conversely, visiting a country doesn't necessarily mean somebody will appreciate its history or culture.
My mother grew up in poverty in New York City, was an art student (High School of Music and Art and Cooper Union, if you need her credentials), spent lots of time in the Metropolitan Museum, Cloisters, Frick, etc. (all of which, by the way, have actual art...from other countries!) and used the NY Public Library to the fullest. Did she comprehend less about the Italian Renaissance than someone who went to Florence for wining, dining, and shopping, with a few hours walking through the Uffizi and maybe a visit to a few churches?
"Oh you read about it? Well, I was there." A statement that I'd never use, even if I had been there. How about "Oh, you went there? Did you understand, or even consider, what you were looking at?" I wouldn't use that one, either, and of course for sheer snob appeal it doesn't adequately dismiss people who lack the resources to travel.
I travel as much as I can and on a budget, and I've been to about 25 countries, but I will never in my lifetime be able to travel to all the places I've learned about from books or classes (Leptis Magna? Bamayan? Çatalhöyük? Aksum? Mars? or even just all the places in the US). I guess I've just wasted a lot of time stuffing my nose into a book. Unlimited travel, or even limited travel, is simply not within everyone's grasp. And for those who can travel, it's not always a educational experience; nor should it have to be.