Posted on 07/28/2009 11:00:24 AM PDT by trueamerica
VITAL STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES 1961 at
http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf
says on page 231 under the section "Race and color" the following:
"Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and "other nonwhite."
"The category "white" includes, in addition to persons reported as "white," those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of "white" and "nonwhite" is used."
Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" shows father's race as "African". That word was not used in 1961 to describe race.
You can draw your own conclusion.
I read it that this classification refers to the child being born, not the parents. Handful of straws...
You’ve given me an idea.
I am convinced that Obama plans to favor Blacks in such things as government grants.
My bloodline is Scotch... white.
I’m thinking of trying to get dual citizenship so that I can then be an African American and then apply for a few grants. I’ll let you white crackers how I do.
I wonder how screwed up the system would get, if millions of us became African Americans, legally.
That qualifies as “white.”
Obama, Sr. was from Africa—NOT Mississippi. I think this proves nothing.
Hussein requested the COLB, probably last year, to help stem the tide. It sure as heck ain’t original. But then, neither is he.
I’ll let you white crackers how I do.= I’ll let you white crackers KNOW how I do.
Not in 1961. The preferred word was Negro. And a COLB is not a birth certificate. It's merely a confirmation that a kid was born somewhere on a specific date. It's something that is issued after the fact, so the parent and kid have proof that the kid actually exists, and the parent can then use it apply for benefits. It is not a record of birth however.
I know, I know. I was just saying that “African” is not a smoking gun.
That, itself, remains to be seen as he was born to a foreign national and he himself had foreign citizenship at birth. There's no historical reference, writings, opinions through the ages that would support that kind of background as being NBC.
A legit HI birth would only prove that he's not an illegal alien (as there is no known naturalization record for him).
Could be a bunch of different “races”.
The “African” bit was always suspect.
Africa is a continent, not a singular -race-.
Good to see it coming to the forefront, though.
No. what if you were Jamaican, or from Belese? That would lump all black people together as being "African' when that would be both insulting and untrue.
Everything changed from 1960 to 1961? Or even from 1950 to 1961? Not likely.
Actually Hawaiian census categories came into line with US categories after statehood, so the categories in the 1960 census were different from earlier ones.
But if you were used to listing people as "Filipino" or "Portuguese" or "Puerto Rican" you wouldn't find "African" much of a stretch, all the more so if you didn't actually see that many "Negroes" around.
In some of the tables for the 1950 Hawaiian census African-Americans were listed with "Other Races" and were only a miniscule part of the population.
In other words, is there any evidence for what you say or are you offering an opinion?
What isn't an opinion where this sort of thing is concerned? You can find the categories used in the 1950 Hawaiian census online, at census.gov, for example.
See my point one, though. Birth certificates intended for the family aren't always as category-bound as those intended for the authorities.
If you were filling things like this out for the family you probably weren't obsessed with Mainland ideas of racial categories.
Obama’s (finally published) birth certificate serial number is 151 1961 - 010641, he was born on 8-4-1961, and the certificate was filed by the Registrar on 8-8-1961 ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html )
Today, the Honolulu advertiser publishes a story, and at the bottom includes a set of long-form BC’s from a woman who had twins at Kapiolani on 8-5-1961 who went to school with Obama.
These twins were born the day AFTER Obama AT KAPIOLANI. And their certificate numbers are LOWER than his (10637 and 10638). They were born 8-5-1961, the certificates were signed by mom 8-7-1961, signed by the MD 8-11-1961, and signed by the Registrar 8-11-1961.
THIS MEANS HE DEFINITELY WAS NOT BORN AT KAPIOLANI, because his BC number (born on Aug 4th and filed with Registrar Aug 8th) should have a lower number than the twins (Born Aug 5th at Kapiolani and filed with Registrar Aug 11th)
But it is. The COLB asks for the race, not country of origin. The word used to describe blacks was Negro, which is a correct description of race regardless or country of origin.
"African" is the very incorrect but 'policically correct' stupidity that is being used today. It wasn't even a consideration when this COLB was said to be issued.
Again do you have any evidence anyone at all listed their race as "African"? I understand what you're offering as opinion, but I'm more interested in evidence.
Oh yes you would. There are plenty of black (or negro if you will ) people in the south Pacific. They don't and never have called them Africans, or identified them as having at one time in their ancestral past as having come from africa. That's because they aren't from Africa.
Any racial classification is going to be found offensive to somebody.
My point was just that a state might not simply reuse racial categories of a half-century ago when it issues it's short form birth certificates.
It's entirely possible that Obama's original long-form said "African." I was simply suggesting that the possibility that someone's original long form might read "Negro" or "colored" while what they'd get from the state today might say "Black" or even "African-American."
Great catch Dinky!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.