Chill out and laugh a little

It's possible that a room full of French majors could become slightly annoyed and roll their eyes after being read a newspaper article that trots out some tired stereotypes about France. If you read the same article to a group of average college students, however, I hope that you would receive a different response, particularly since I happen to be the author.France is a beautiful country, rich in history, culture and, perhaps most importantly, full of good food. I already extolled some of its virtues in the very article that Jaci Holland angrily responded to, but I will reiterate here that France is still a major player in the world, and the statistics that tout it as the most visited nation by foreign tourists speak for the nation's domestic attraction. I enjoyed my time in France and have no sort of personal vendetta against the French people.

With that in mind, I would like to note that absurdity is one of many devices used for comedic effect. Homer Simpson is absurdly stupid. Ron Burgundy is absurdly arrogant. Bender B. Rodriguez is absurdly narcissistic. We find absurdity funny because we imagine the fictionally absurd situation happening in reality and realize just how ridiculously out of place it would be.

Stereotypes are untrue and ignorant - we have all been taught that since we were little. However, they are also an example of absurdity, asserting that every member of a particular group behaves a certain way. When they are witnessed in person, they are no doubt bound to elicit laughs because we are witnessing the absurdity that we had previously only imagined possible.

On multiple occasions in France, I was waited on by extremely lazy restaurant hosts who stood around and talked with employees or enjoyed a cigarette rather than fulfilling my request. More than once I saw parents instruct their children to relieve themselves in the street. More than once I saw videos by French rappers such as "Busta Flex" imitating American hip-hop in their own unique way. These things actually happened. My article was not the result of some sort of string of "random, ignorant assumptions" as Holland has claimed.

With the astuteness of Furman students in mind, I wrote an article sarcastically posturing as an American triumphalist recording some of my more outrageous observations in France. I had hoped this would be a humorous way to point out how stupid these attitudes are, while still being able to relate the experiences that I had. I took for granted the fact that the several articles I had previously written for my column were meant to be humorous, establishing a context of humor. I took for granted evidence of the article's intent apparent in its placement in the "Diversions" section. I took for granted that the Furman community could distinguish between absurd fiction and reality. I took for granted that readers can distinguish between an alternative author identity and a real, university-educated individual. Finally, I took for granted that virtually all forms of contemporary humor take advantage of stereotypes and cultural and societal assumptions.

From what I gather, it was largely members of the Furman French department who were bothered by my column and had difficulty divining its purpose from the style in which it was presented. As an academic community, if we get offended by (attempted) jokes about a subject, that subject becomes something we hold to be sacred - something too important and too worthy of being set apart to find humor in. Perhaps we need to take a step back, examine the big picture and evaluate what we hold sacred and what really matters to us before we jump the gun and accuse others of ignorance and small-mindedness.