Replies

In the 1964 Vital Statistic in the United States, Natality, it says that they made a change lumping Aleut and Eskimo into the code for American Indian.

@ http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/nat64_1.pdf

Births in the United States “in 1964 are classified for statistical purposes according to the race of the parents. The racial categories are “white,” Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian combined, and flother nonwhite. ” In most tables a less detailed classification of “white” and “nonwhite” is used.
The category “white” comprises births reported as white, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban and prior to 1964 all births for which race was not stated. Beginning in 1964 a portion of the ‘race not stated frequencies are assigned to Negro.
The category “nonwhite” comprises Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian, and “other nonwhite.” Beginning in 1964 Aleuts and’ Eskimos are included in American Indian, significantly increasing the births in this racial category when comparisons are made with previous years. The State of Alaska is particularly affected in this regard. Prior to 1964 Aleuts and Eskimos were assigned to the “other races” category. Also beginning with 1964 ill-defined or not clearly identifiable races are assigned to “race not stated. ” This includes such reports as “oriental” and “yellow, ” which in previous years were assigned to a specific category such as other nonwhite, Chinese, or Japanese. The number of births classified as Chinese, Japanese, and other nonwhite in 1964 is thereby considerably less than the number assigned to these categories in previous years.
The newborn child is ordinarily assigned to the race of his parents, If the parents are of different races, the following, rules apply: (1) When the parental combination, is white-nonwhite, the child is assigned to the nonwhite race. (2) When the parental combination is of two nonwhite races, the child is assigned to the father’s race with two exceptions. If the mother is Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian, the child is assigned to Hawaiian, if the mother is Negro and the father is not Hawaiian, the child is assigned to Negro. Snip... Race not stated. — The birth records with race not stated are those on which the race of both parents was missing or ill-defined. When the race of only one parent was missing or ill-defined, the race of the other determined that of the child. Beginning in 1964 when race was not stated, the race of the child was allocated, as the birth record was electronically processed, to white or Negro according to the race of the child on the preceding record. If the race on the preceding record was white, the assignment was to white; if it was nonwhite, the assignment was to Negro.

So before 1964...well isn't that interesting!

And that is how they are designated in the 1968 table.
And? Without the "Race of Father" code for 1961 we're not making any headway.

“Without the “Race of Father” code for 1961 we’re not making any headway.”

I agree. And here is something else. The Nordyke’s and the Obama’s BC are coded for parents’ place of birth. But the Feds didn’t require that field be coded. So why code it at all unless Hawaii was keeping their own statistics. So looking at the Feds codes may be totally meaningless if Hawaii had their own codes.

Now look at the WND BC that otherss posted earlier. It shows a “3” as the race of parents. By the Feds that means they were American Indians. And in parents place of birth they are both listed as “1”. Is that the code for Hawaii? Are they ethnic Hawaiians?