Hawaii’s “Father’s Race” codes
Scroll down a bit for stuff that is easier and faster to read.
this “conversation” was copied here with permission:
This might have been what you were looking at regarding the “Father’s Race” codes, [redacted], but I want to post the links here so people can scour it for other information. Here’s the index that’ll get you to different documents:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vital_certs_rev.htmHere is the doc that is about data entry for birth certificates.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/FinalBirthSpecs3-24-2005.pdfEDITORS NOTE: 1/26/2014 – the links in the text above do not open in the location where they previously took you. I do not know when this change occurred.
In reading through this stuff, the system (which was updated in 2003 after input by a committee which included Alvin Onaka, Hawaii’s state registrar) will not allow a file to be transmitted to the state database if certain information is incomplete. The parts that are incomplete are labelled “Pending” and show up asking for data to complete the record immediately when the record is accessed.
There is a void flag which is either activated by the system itself (if vital information is missing or if values entered are invalid) or by the state registrar’s office worker who is entering the data from a paper record. The void flag is presumably the input to identify deficient certificates – such as delayed or amended ones (like Obama has). How that is shown in the actual output isn’t stated.
This page http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12714&page=R1 will get you access to information about vital records data management. There is a chart which shows that the 2003 revised birth certificates were not in use by Hawaii as of 2007 but the issue with it seems to be that there is so much added information. The actual software used for the system may be in use in Hawaii. Hard to tell.
This is part of the “code” page: Notice no value for “African” exists…..(update 1/2014, I noticed that I did not include a link or original source for the chart immediately below – not even a screenshot. Them were the early days in my blogging, I will look for the source of the chart and update if I can locate it)
PROCESSING VARIABLES:
NAME DESCRIPTION VALUES DEFINITION
FRACE1 White checkbox Y Box for race checked
N Box for race not checked
FRACE2 Black or African American Y Box for race checked
checkbox N Box for race not checked
FRACE3 American Indian or Y Box for race checked
Alaska Native checkbox N Box for race not checked
FRACE4 Asian Indian checkbox Y Box for race checked
N Box for race not checked
FRACE5 Chinese checkbox Y Box for race checked
N Box for race not checked
FRACE6 Filipino checkbox Y Box for race checked
N Box
UPDATE 7/15/10 From a reader, THANK YOU:
Page 231 contains the requirements for “Race and color.”
“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.”
.
.Click to enlarge
http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf
There was NO classification for “African” (or African-American) as can be seen by this screenshot from a 1960-1961 Tape File Info Manual (located by our arch obot, Dr. Con spiracy via a FOIA)
screenshot, click to enlarge:
.Vital-Statistics-Tape-File-Information-1960-1961-Natality-Tape-Files-for-the-United-States
At that pink link you can read the document containing the info in above screenshot, and also you will read that for BOTH 1960 and 1961 the “code structure” was the same. Why is that important? Because for a little period of time it was thought that the penciled codes visible on the HI birth certifications (both long and short versions) were of significance in proving/disproving the veracity of obamas’ certificate of live birth. While SOME people claimed (after my discovery of the 1961 Coding Manual) that the “revision date” of August 14, 1961 on the 1961 Coding and Punching Instruction Manual had possible changes to the above race codes, and so the ’61 Coding Manual was …….blah, blah, blah. They were trying to support a theory, and IT NEVER MATTERED because ……… those tiny penciled codes were not the ones used by the federal government. They were State/local – the Fed coders ignored those. Anyway, this proves that the Federal race coding would not have changed at any point in 1961, but would have remained as in this manual throughout 1961. BTW, I noticed that Dr. Conjob posted the ’61 coding and punching manual to Scribe under his nic – but I am the one who first obtained it and blogged it. Just saying.
.
January 2011 UPDATE:
This is not specific to Hawaii, but demonstrates the fact that race codes are specific, and the parent/parents can now self-identify from among the listed race codes. Just click on image to enhance:
UPDATE. I found the following panel in a presentation that Alvin Onaka had done in Philly PA in 2002. Titled;
THE COLLECTION AND USE OF RACE AND ETHNIC DATA IN HAWAII (What? No AFRICAN??? )
http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/021108p1.pdf
My Very Own Point of View 
Questions:
In 1961 what codes/definitions were used?
How is the race of the child determined? (ex., are parents able to determine what race ends up on Birth Certificate/Certification of Live Birth?)
As far as I can figure, the “race” was determined (submitted) by the parents. Of course if you appeared to be snow white, they likely wouldn’t allow you to classify yourself as black, or negro (as was the commonly used term in the early 60’s.). One thing I really haven’t given much thought to is what the “race” of the child would be considered from a bi-racial couple in the early 1960’s. I know that for a long ways back in history a child with “mixed” parentage was typically considered non-white. I do not know for a fact how it would have been done in the early sixties, but it is likely the child of a bi-racial union would still have been considered non-white.
So, a child considered “non-white” could/would have been classified as the same race of the non-white parent back then. So, if one parent were “negro”, one “caucasian”, the child would (likely ?) have been determined to be “negro”. I think it would be an interesting thing to research more thoroughly. I simply suspect that it may still have been done that way in the early 60,s.
The general understanding is that since “African” was not in use as a hospital/vital stats code/definition in the 1960’s, it is highly likely that the code for “negro”, which was in use at the time, would have been assigned to a child born of one parent of African background, and one parent of caucasian background.
Thanks for the reply. It would be interesting to see when they officially changed from “negro” to “African-American” or “African”. I’ll see what I can find out here in Hawaii.
Great! Drop a comment if you do find out. I MAY have something in all of my tons of little snips collected-but I’ve spent six months compiling the info for the newspaper birth announcement research, and all of my other files/folders/ect. are in a totally disreputable state of confusion now.
I got it.
Page 231 contains the requirements for “Race and color.”
“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.”
There was NO classification for “African” (or African-American)
Click to access nat61_1.CV.pdf
WOW! Fast. Thank you so much. While I was fairly certain there was not a “African-American, or African”, it is great to have this. I’ll put the link in the body of the Page also.
Fine work on your part :).
[…] https://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/hawaiis-fathers-race-codes […]
Calling All Mongrels !! « My Very Own Point of View said this on July 30, 2010 at 6:49 pm |
We don’t know that anybody at the hospital knew that his father was black – there is a question as to how involved his parents were with each other. The father may have never appeared at the hospital, in which case, they would have only known if the mother had told them. Especially since black babies often look white when born, as it can take some time for the melanin to express itself.
Some people think he is hiding his BC because it says “caucasian”. I don’t agree; I think that’s easily explainable. I do think the “African” is a tip-off to fraudulent activity, however, because besides what you’ve said about the codes used, “African” is not a race – it’s a continent!
[…] Hawaii’s “Father’s Race” codes […]
Barack’s Baggage « My Very Own Point of View said this on January 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
[…] https://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/hawaiis-fathers-race-codes […]
Pssst, Hey Buddy, Wanna See My Polk? « My Very Own Point of View said this on February 11, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
[…] you want info on “Hawaii’s father race codes”, you will find that at this link:https://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/hawaiis-fathers-race-codesI will put these Polks up for anyone who would care to have a look. This batch is from the […]
from ladyforest… | NwoDaily.com said this on March 10, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
[…] you want info on “Hawaii’s father race codes”, you will find that at this link:https://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/hawaiis-fathers-race-codesI will put these Polks up for anyone who would care to have a look. This batch is from the […]
from ladysforest… | NwoDaily.com said this on March 11, 2011 at 2:41 am |
[…] Hawaii’s “Father’s Race” codes « My Very Own Point of ViewMar 11, 2011 … FRACE2 Black or African American Y Box for race checked checkbox N Box for race not checked. FRACE3 American Indian or Y Box for race … […]
Race checkbox | Jarieber said this on November 22, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
You are VERY good. Excellent research. Thank you, Linda Jordan
Thank you. Wish we could find even more.
certainly birth certificates issued to others that day, the day prior and the day after need to be reviewed to see what inconsistencies exist with Obamas officially released Whitehouse version. The TRUTH needs to come out……and you usually have to DIG for truth.
Im arguing with someone that is an authority on this- he says the Cold Case Posse is mistakenly using the codes devised in 1968, not 1961…these two manuals contain some differences, so if the 61 is used , then problem vanishes, supposedly. Can you help clear this up? Is “unknown, not stated” just in the 68 manual or is it in the 61 manual also?
Did you look at the post images? Just click on them to enlarge them and you will be able to read the contents. MOST DEFINITELY there was a classification specifically for “not stated” in 1961. I do not have the INSTRUCTION manual which details the specific codes for the parents race. Most of what is posted online with any “source” links is to the SUMMARY which only contains the codes/categories (without the parental code numbers mentioned) for the CHILD – not the parent, which is the actual focus of this issue. I want to get sourced confirmation for the codes used for the PARENTS race = self described. “Self described” is extremely important here. Remember that.
Here’s what I’m stuck on, so clarification is appreciated.
Cell 11 on the BC is coded “2” – does this match with the information on the BC, “Kenya, East Africa”
At the time of Barack Sr.’s birth, Kenya was the colony of Kenya, the protectorate of British East Africa ended in 1920. Not sure if “Kenya, East Africa” would have been the correct answer for this BC. But my tilt is that it would have been the correct or common terminology at the time.
He do we resolve the information in cells 11 and 12, which match Obama Sr and appear to have correct vital stats codes, this the theory that the 9 code problems in cells 9 and 12b point to fraud.
One thing which troubled me in Corsi’s presentation, was the purposed oversight of the full definition of code 9 – “unknown or not stated” … if African had been supplied on the BC initially and a vital statistics person comes across it, would they not have labled it 9 for “unknown” rather than “not supplied”?
What I’m most interested in is who supplied the information used on the BC and how is it verified at the time? The situation of the President’s birth was unusual in Hawaii in 1961. Assume that Obama Sr was not present at the birth, which I think is widely held to be correct. The father is 25, and from Kenya, but is he negro, causcasian, mixed, arabic? Soemone puts down “African”.
I am a political opponent of our President, but I am loyal to the truth and not reaching into speculation beyond evidence. Thanks for your help.
I don’t have the answer for box 11. We would need the instruction manual for 1961 to be certain of the codes assigned to the different demographics. Obviously – a code 2 in the mothers race field would have indicated “negro” (1961) but a code 2 in the mothers birthplace field would have meant something quite different. On the 1961 BC, in the parents birthplace boxes is printed – “Island, State, or Foreign Country.” Since the “summary” is really on the children, it stands to reason that the barest most basic info on the PARENTS birthplace would be entered on the punchcards/mag. tape, in spite of how detailed the information provided for the answer.
If “9” was the assigned code for “unknown or not stated” – I don’t understand the part of your question re: “not supplied”. IF African had already been on the BC worksheet/form when it reached the clerk at the dept. of health, then a race designation would have been coded. Back then – it’s *possible* *probable* that a clerk in HI would have assumed “African” to be negro. If there were doubt, it seems likely that the parent would have been contacted for clarification prior to the completion of the paperwork.
The information on the birth certs was, and is provided by the parents. A form was given to the parent/parents to fill out. Often a nurse/aide was present while it was being filled out in case the parent/parents had questions. I’ve had three children, it was this way with each of them. Now-a-days it is often done a little ahead of time, then reviewed and signed off on. The nurses don’t “verify” the info self-supplied beyond verifying your identity as well as possible. If a person has insurance – a lot of the info is verified via the insurance company. Things like marital status, age, address, etc. can all be verified through insurance. I guarantee you that unwed women on medi-caid USUALLY state they do not know the baby-daddy so that the father AND the welfare mom can skip out on repaying the hospital bill. The hospital HAS to take them at their word.