The fed codes manual didn’t instruct the punchers on how to code the parents - just the children. By using the parents listed race(s).
The DOH (even at local levels) had to use universal codes for things like race, because the fed coders would reference that if there were any irregularities. In addition to penciling in the codes prior to microfilming, the local DOH would have to catch anomalies - like using “African” as a race. However, the local DOH seemed to have additional info that they were accustomed to harvest for their own use - such as parents business. The fed code manuals don’t touch on that at all.
In the ‘60s they were not all PC as they are now. We know that for a fact. They were trained to fill the forms a certain way for a certain reason. The fed code manual explains what to do if a BC showed up without enough data to make a clear decision on how to code the childs race. It can be expected that the same was true of local level instruction manuals.
“The fed codes manual didn’t instruct the punchers on how to code the parents - just the children. By using the parents listed race(s).”
I understand that and possible wrote that badly.
On this Hawaiian BC the penciled code is “3” and for the Federal instructions that means “Indian (includes American and Alaska Indians)”, but as I understand it the parents are not “Indian” but part Asian/part Hawaiian.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/342937/
Too bad WND redacted so much of the information.
So did the Hawaiian codes for race not match the Federal codes?
“the local DOH would have to catch anomalies - like using “African” as a race.”
So you are saying that if Obama was born and they were using the 1961 coding instructions, his father’s race would be listed as “Other Non-White” and “African” would be struck out?