Not to defend all reporters, but don't give the editors a pass. I've heard enough complaints from writers who hardly recognize their own articles when they finally reach print. Not to mention those who self-censor because they know their organization simply will not publish/air what doesn't fit the "editorial policy."

Great point, SursumCorda!

I am an African, I can tell you that polygamy is part of African culture, and it still goes on today, although I am sure it is much less prevalent than it was in the past. I know people, have friends, whose fathers were/are married to more than one person at the same time. Sure, Muslims are allowed up to 4 wives, but an African man can conceivably marry as many as he wants. Do you know how many wives some traditional rulers have? At least Islam limits the number of wives a man can have.

The reporters are absolutely right. It is both sub-saharan African culture and Islamic culture (for African Muslims). Polygamy existed long before Islam or Christianity were introduced. It does cut across all religious lines, because you will also find some polygamous church goers, although they don't dare have the second wedding in the church. (Who would allow that?)
Actually, there's what I'll refer to as some pseudo church movements that appear to mix African traditional religion and Christianity, and they allow polygamy. And many Africans will place their culture above the requirements of their religion (just like people all over the world, including Americans).

So the fact that Islam allows polygamy just validates the urges of these polygamous men. Some Middle Eastern countries, e.g., Iran, actually make it difficult to marry more than one woman (as the article rightly pointed out), but there are no such restrictions in Africa that I am aware of. Of course, I am only from one country, and I don't know what goes on everywhere in my country, much less the rest of Africa. But I am pretty sure this is how it is in the majority of sub-saharan Africa.

I don't know of any guys in my generation with more than one wife, so hopefully polygamy is fading away.

And by the way, female subjugation is common in many quarters (as it probably is in most of the world, anyhow). Try being an African woman whose husband just died.

I love my heritage, and what I wrote above is not true of all people. It's just that these things are not uncommon at all. That is traditional African culture for you. Sorry, no left wing consipracy.

In investigation the story, the reporters were probably aware of what I am saying, but you are right in that they seem to be contradicting themselves. They should have been clearer.

Tim, as much as I really like and admire you and love your blog (I think you are incredibly intelligent), I am waiting for you to say one positive thing about the left/negative thing about the right. Perhaps you have and I missed it. ;)

Oh. I just saw something positive you wrote about some people on the left. My bad! :-)

Rara!

Thanks for your thoughtful comments!

I am an African, I can tell you that polygamy is part of African culture, and it still goes on today...

I believe you, and don't deny it for a moment. But my focus, as you also say, was on the content of the article and the people being interviewed -- what they said, versus what the reporter wanted us to know.

It may be, perhaps, that those who are only culturally polygamous in Africa would tend to leave it behind when coming to the US and being immersed in a different culture -- and that only those whose religion trumps culture would make sure the practice continued no matter where they lived.

But if so, the reporter (and/or editor!) does the reader a disservice, since she is interviewing those who were still polygamous in America, who kept that habit (or even started it, in the opening story) for what appear to have been exclusively religious reasons.

I don't deny Africa is culturally polygamous.

But New York isn't Africa, and it doesn't follow that because someone once came from a certain area, they must still be complely constrained by that culture, which no longer surrounds them. You must look carefully at their own statements, and those of their current peers, to find out what's happening and why. Superimposing another narrative is unhelpful to this process.

My own grandfather came from Denmark, but Danish culture and custom didn't constrain my mother's home. Quite to the contrary: whenver she wanted to learn what Danes did, he said "that was the old way" and "we are all Americans now!" So she had to learn about Denmark on her own.

So there are times when people drop one culture for those of another, yet there are also times when some element is preserved no matter what. Religion can and does play a role in that choice criteria, and it's absurd to simply assume (as the article implies) that "culture" is always the dominant value.

Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's religion.

But the narrative of the article seems designed to undermine that impression, which would have been left otherwise.

... my point was that it is possible that the reporter may been told things that made him/her assume that polygamy was mainly a result of African culture.

You're a wonderful person, Rara, and your faith in reporters is touching.

If you read the New York Times (and most mainstream newspapers), one of the things you'll notice is there is a big attempt to downplay anything negative which might be linked with Islam.* For example, when a group of Islamist terrorists attack, we'll read in the Times that a group of "militants" of "asian origin" killed so-and-so...

So it seems clear, from their general ongoing tenor, that the Times does not want readers to have an impression that Islam, among all religions, might be linked with anything negative.

(* There are also positive things linked with Islam. I just think they should treat all religions the same and let the chips fall where they may.)

And indeed, even just looking at this article alone, you can see that the reporter clearly wants -- from the number of times she tells the reader it's really "culture" which is the problem here -- to make sure that the reader doesn't think these trends are due to religion. She repeats this assertion over and over.

So, given her apparent interest in getting that idea across, and the paper's general long-term policy, do you think, if she had an actual quote, sitting right there on her notepad, which proved it was culture, not religion -- that she'd omit that?

She'd have to be hopelessly incompetant. And I don't think she ended up working for the Times because she was hopelessly incompetant.

Also, it wouldn't make any sense in the context of the story. Take the first woman featured: Her husband "cited Islamic precepts", and that was reported. Are we supposed to believe that he actually also cited culture as a far more important reason, but the reporter somehow just forgot to mention that?

Another woman, when asked why she puts up with it, says "It’s difficult, but one accepts it because it’s our religion." So she just gave us a quote which indicated that, in her mind, that dominant reason was her family's religion. Did she also say: "But not nearly as important as African culture!" -- and yet the reporter just forgot to mention it?

And, in fact, the reporter herself admitted that the people she was interviewing kept citing Islam:

Islam is often cited as the authority that allows polygamy.

That's a flat-out admission that she was hearing people primarily cite Islam as the reason they did what they did.

After all, s/he wrote "Other women spoke bitterly of polygamy. They said their participation was dictated by an African culture of female subjugation and linked polygamy to female genital cutting and domestic violence." The reporter was reporting what s/he was told.

Yet, strangely, there was nothing in the surrounding material which supported that statement. That should seem a bit odd, shouldn't it? Especially since it contradicts the quotes she was able to gather for the article, and her own admission that Islam was frequently cited for justification?

Sorry, when I hear the phrase "an African culture of female subjugation" I tend to believe I'm hearing a New York feminist liberal vocabulary and mindset. :-) The reporters' impressions -- not a near-direct paraphrase of what she was told.

Tim: It may be, perhaps, that those who are only culturally polygamous in Africa would tend to leave it behind when coming to the US and being immersed in a different culture -- and that only those whose religion trumps culture would make sure the practice continued no matter where they lived.

Rara: What makes you think so? That is not necessarily true.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I suspect it's generally true. What makes me think so? There are two reasons.

The first is the evidence in front of me: In the article, religion was the reason actually given by those quoted as being the most important factor.

Look at the US: When was it prominent in the early US, and where does it still thrive? Only in areas where there was some religion (early Mormonism, and splinter groups today) which justified it. And religion also played a key role in prohibiting it here.

The second is what I know of human nature: There are people who are strongly and weakly influenced by their religion. When religious influence is weak, culture usually dominates. Otherwise, religion is the stronger influence.

So when people change cultures, those who tend to follow the culture will still do that, and those whose religion is dominant will still be influenced by their faith.

This effect is even stronger when there are laws involved: to violate a local custom is a small thing, but to risk legal penalties is a greater one. So, I reason, if someone is violating US marriage laws, it must be because they have an influence on them which is stronger than they believe US law to be.

So I'm not surprised to see Islam being cited as just such an influence, Rara. Especially during a time and place (New York City) where many people are busy arguing that marriage should be whatever people want it to be.

I have heard at least two stories of Africans who got married over here in the US (to an American woman in at least one case) and then went home and married someone else. And I can almost say for sure that they weren't Muslims.

Right! Precisely my point. These men did whatever was acceptable in the culture they were currently in. When the were here, they undoubtedly gave the typical monogamous marriage vows (only you... as long as well shall live) used here. When they went home, they did what was acceptable there.

Such an individual is dominated more by culture than religion, and will "go with the flow" rather than swim against the tide.

You've supplied the perfect illustration for what I'm saying here. Unlike those in the article (who DID cite relgion as the dominant consideration) as long as they were here they played by the laws of this is country, and followed the culture.

Danes and Africans are very different. European culture and African culture are very different. We think in different ways. I can't imagine any Nigerians I know that live in the US saying "that was the old way" and "we are all Americans now!" Not in my wildest imaginations.

I agree entirely! I'm not a cultural relativist -- I don't feel all cultures are the same, or even morally equivalent. That why I strongly feel that immigration needs to be restricted to individuals who are more willing to cherish and value the best things is US culture, not those who will actively or passively undermine them.

Situations like also this raise a valid question concerning people who leave one country, with one culture, to go to another they'd prefer more -- and yet are utterly unwilling to confront the linkage between the practices, customs and laws of their old country and the problems which made them want to leave it.

This is probably due to the widespread philosophy of blaming others rather than ourselves, of looking for the mote in other people's eyes before noticing the logs in our own. Since it's easy to blame others, problems will not be confronted and fixed.

I will concede that in Africa (at least in Nigeria) polygamy is probably more prevalent in Muslim and pagan/animist societies than in Christian ones.

Right! That's part of the evidence which forms my thinking here. And yes, there are some "Christians" who practice polygamy, but they usually talk about "culture" when justifying it, since their religion gives them little support.

If culture were to change, these go-with-the-flow people (at least in this area -- we can have different influences in different aspects of our lives) would continue to follow the path of least resistence.

... one of my late uncles had 3 wives (although the first one left him long ago) and only God knows how many the other had. A close relative's Dad has been married to at least 3 women at the same time. And we don't have any Muslims on either side of my family. In fact, we We are what would be considered a "Christian" family. (Church-goers is more accurate.) A good friend's "Christian" father has 2 wives. Need I go on?

I agreed before you started! Yes, there are "Christians" (and we'd both use the quotes!) in Africa who practice polygamy.

But I don't think they'd be the ones like to continue to do so when they became immersed in US culture. We're not arguing on this point: I agree with you entirely.

It will probably take at least a couple of generations (hopefully sooner) to completely disappear among people who identify themselves as Christian.

That would happen sooner if it was made illegal -- because law is an even stronger influence overall than culture. (Indeed, here in the US, a legal threat to the Mormons seemed to have produced a very timely relevation from God that polygamy was no longer to be practiced!)

But Nigeria, the big reason it's not made illegal is because of the situation with the north.

The same thing happened in the history of Europe concerning slavery, Rara. Most people don't know that (though it arose again later) slavery was generally prohibited in Europe as early as 800AD. The practice only continued strongly, among Christians, in the edge areas, where Christians had frequent contact with Muslims.

People in border regions, who aren't strongly controlled by some faith, will choose the elements of each culture which they find most personally beneficial. For a man with sufficient wealth (and libido) this can mean polygamy looks fairly attractive.

... from what I've seen, it seems Asian Indians also hold on to their culture, much moreso than Africans. That's why even after living in the U.S. for a while, a number of them will still have arranged marriages.

But you're mixing apples and oranges here: We don't have ANY laws at all against arranged marriages here in the US. And, quite to the contrary, when my Hindu friends tell me they're going home to get a wife, I wish them well.

Do you think we'd have the same interaction (and response from me, or most other Americans) if they said they were going home to marry a second wife and bring her back?

There's a HUGE difference there!

Nobody minds minor cultural customs which don't conflict with US laws. Our family still decorates the Christmas tree with Danish-style oranments. Nobody cares if Muslims go to Mosque on Friday: there's lots of room for variation in US culture.

But polgygamy is a huge cultural taboo, and is still illegal. You can't draw a parallel between that and situations where parents merely exert strong influence over spouse choice.

I do not mean to speak for all Africans because it is a continent composed of many countries and many, many more cultures. I write only from my experience.

And I thank you for contributing that!

Best to you!
- Tim