Gennifer Flowers.

[Dill]

(10-10-2016, 06:54 PM)ashollodero Wrote: Interesting point... but don't forget, we as people are probably more alike than you'd guess. We have our national media with their various filters either, and we too don't speak French or Spanish. We can follow you, but honestly, we would not expect you to follow us just as closely. It's not condescending to assume that, and it probably really isn't meant that way in many instances.
Why would you follow all of our countries? 
I hardly know what goes on in, say, Portugal and wouldn't recognize the Dutch Queen. We are not that different people here. Some of "us" educated people (well, those who speak English and know how a LAN cable works) might additionally surf around and find themselves more interested in US media and politics for there's more at stake and it's the culture that influences us more via film, music and tv than maybe our own does. 
But that's that. Do not overestimate people's compulsion for news and education here. Plus, being somehow "informed" is certainly not a broad movement. Just look at some of the folks or ideas many people in our countries vote for. And those who don't aren't necessarily all smarter.

Thanks for the response and info. I was not aware Austrian neutrality was forced upon it by the Allies, but I do feel safer knowing that

I wouldn't expect anyone in any one country to follow what's happening in ALL countries on any continent. That's not the standard/level of "informed" to which I was appealing. My points were more nuanced, tying interest and ability to economic and educational levels varying within and across countries. (Not all Germans are Gymnasium graduates.)

And one point was that many Europeans--proportionally more than Americans--follow SOMETHING of other countries' culture and politics, and through the other countries' media/language. One consequence of bilingualism or multilingualism (E.g. many Swiss do know French as well as German and English)  is that people, in addition to becoming better informed about international politics, do become more aware of their own media's filters.  English allows non-Anglo Europeans quick access to to British as well as U.S. media. Further, those in the EU are somewhat forced to pay attention to other EU countries' economies and elections, even if they can't speak Greek or Spanish.  U.S. Middle-East politics have a great deal to do with the current refugees crisis in Europe, driving interest in what is going on in those countries and in U.S. foreign policy as well.

One might argue that events in the Middle-East similarly drive Americans to pay attention to what's going on there, including "what people think of us," and that our immigration problem motivates curiosity about Mexico and Central America. But here I must say I been very disappointed.

If you have been following our election, you may recall that the Libertarian candidate for president, Gary Johnson, drew a complete blank when a journalist asked him about the situation in Aleppo. "What's Aleppo?" he responded. A few weeks later, Chris Matthews asked him to name one current world leader he admired. He could not think of a single one. (His VP chimed in "Merkel.") Johnson said "The previous president of Mexico," but could not remember his name. This is a former governor of New Mexico, whose state borders on Mexico. Trump, at least, could name Putin. That one candidate DOES know quite about about foreign policy and the politics of foreign countries does not seem regarded by the U.S. electorate a particularly decisive point in her favor.