Woman has non-white child, then publicly regrets it

Here’s one of the strangest, sickest things I’ve seen. Lowri Turner, who apparently is a regular columnist on women’s issues in the Daily Mail, after having two children with her first, white husband, married an Indian man and had a child with him. Now she’s upset that the the child looks so different from her, and she’s telling the world about this in her column:

Don’t get me wrong, I love her. She is the child I didn’t think I’d have after my first marriage broke up…

But when I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien. With her long, dark eyelashes and shiny, dark brown hair, she doesn’t look anything like me.

I know that concentrating on how my daughter looks is shallow. She is a person in her own right, not an accessory to me. But still, I can’t shake off the feeling of unease.

I didn’t realise how much her looking different would matter and, on a rational level, I know it shouldn’t. But it does.

Evolution demands that we have children to pass on our genes, hence the sense of pride and validation we get when we see our features reappearing in the next generation.

With my daughter, I don’t have that.

Now, I happen to believe that race matters, that it’s normal for people to want their relatives to look like themselves, that interracial marriage leads to a confusion of identity both on the personal level and for society as a whole, and that it is better to be avoided. I would normally welcome information backing up that view. But for this woman to marry an Indian and have a child, and then decide she’s uncomfortable with her child’s different racial and appearance, and then to write publicly about her feelings—I’m just appalled. What a selfish, stupid women. From her photo accompanying the story you can tell she’s stupid.

The story is also discussed at American Renaissance.

- end of initial entry -

Ben W. writes:

Here is another dimension to this woman’s stupidity;

In our time, information doesn’t ever go away. Books, news articles, music, films, encyclopaedias, etc.—every form of data is digitized, cross-referenced and eventually archived. It is not difficult to perform searches through billions of pieces of information and get instant results. Her daughter may one day come across her mother’s ambivalent feelings about her if she pops her name into a search engine in doing family research. What then?

This shows how unnatural liberal universalism is.

Also, she writes “Evolution demands that…” If evolution is true and it “demands” (rule of law), then whence comes her ambivalence about her child and her split consciousness in this matter? Can this be a moment of unevolving and how is that even possible?

Paul K. writes:

Thanks for posting this article. It was an interesting glimpse into the thought processes of he confused, conflicted liberal. As we would expect of a self-described “Z-list celebrity,” Turner seems to be primarily concerned with attention from others, even to the point of sharing her unseemly misgivings publicly. Perhaps they may serve as a cautionary tale to others.

She does not mention that she is now divorced from her Indian husband after an 18-month marriage. He seems to have an injunction against her writing about him in her columns—a wise precaution.

Karen writes from England:

I sent you the Daily Mail article earlier this week as it was quite a good follow up to your earlier post of people’s attitudes to racial mixing and how that had changed over the years. This article demonstrates two major issues: despite people’s supposedly changed attitudes to racial mixing, people at the deepest level do feel more comfortable with their own ethnic group and thus the “transformation” in their attitudes towards accepting other races is superficial. The other issue is the ambivalent regard for marriage as an institution for the preservation of race and culture. Lowri Turner evidently didn’t think any more seriously about marrying an Indian than her own immediate needs and pleasure. Some people would be better with arranged marriages!

But if that story was appalling, here is another one which is much worse.

I agree with you that mixed race people have confused identities and I have noticed that whites who marry into Third World cultures and live with their spouses in these countries, become profoundly disturbed. At the moment there are many Lowri Turners here and the rapidly rising number of mixed race children in Britain is going to cause future social problems. There is a case for banning miscegenation. The majority of people who get into mixed race relationships are too stupid to realise the mistake until long after the event.

Olivier writes:

Stories like this one infuriate me every time. Here in the Netherlands there are many, many children of mixed race. And I can’t help but noticing the mother is usually the white parent. Plus, as far as I can tell, these mothers have a relatively high chance of ending up alone.

A friend of mine has a white female colleague at work who—for her first child—has deliberately chosen a black father, whom she at the same time doesn’t want to be a part of the upbringing of the child. This man has already impregnated six women. This is his ninth child, and he or she will be called “Nine”—in some exotic language. But then again, it seems to be (literally) quite fashionable to bear a child in a color of choice. I could tell many more such stories.

Anyway, there is a point I would like to make, beside the fact that our ethnic heritage is being destroyed by the ideologically led and the simply dumb. In liberal/progressive society, we are expected to show solidarity and brotherhood towards each other. Now, as the traditional man already knows, this solidarity should not only be based on some abstract universalistic notion or idea. It should also flow from the realization that kinship and ethnicity have intrinsic and practical value. Yet progressives want us to base it all on the aforementioned abstraction. However, as they also encourage all “citizens” to be individualistic in their moral development, they offer no real moral imperative of solidarity to those who base it on more than just an abstraction.

With that in mind, I feel there is little reason to show solidarity to the “families” who flaunt their “dual heritage” and “celebrate” the destruction of the distinct people that have made their existence possible in the first place. However, all these people whom I don’t really consider as fellow citizens in (legal) reality are. While I will always encourage and pursue a strong policy of remigration and non-immigration, this large proportion of mixed people will be here to stay. Is there anything (practical) we can do about this without losing our moral compass?

LA replies:

I don’t have a definite answer to that. In speaking about Western survival, everything depends on the majority starting to act like the majority again, and that will include, along with reversing immigration and other things, expressing disapproval of intermarriage—in contrast to the current approval of it. Let’s be clear. There is a conscious racial program at work with much of this intermarriage. The white women who do this are opting out of their own historic people and trying to change their society racially. Since they have a racial agenda, it cannot be plausibly argued that it is immoral for other people to have a different racial agenda.

In any case, as the majority reverses its decline and starts to become stronger again and the country starts to return to sanity, over time these other problems such as intermarriage and mixed-race individuals will also get less. People who identify with the majority culture will do so. People who don’t, won’t. In a society with a renewed majority culture, a small minority of race-mixed people will not be a serious problem.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 19, 2007 09:08 AM | Send