Read and learn. First paragraph, standard race classifications for vital statistics records:
“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.’”
Newxt paragraph: Association of standards with actual birth certificates:
“A comparison of the race designation in matched sets of birth certificates and census records from the 1950 registration completeness test indicates very high agreement for white persons and Negroes.”
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf see page 231.
Conclusion: Strong reason to be suspicious of “African” racial classification on birth certificate.
Read up around the first few pages and look at the collection system. (I think we are talking about the same REPORT) Read 5-8 or 5-9 maybe where they talk about the microfilm records, and keypunch. Prior to input, error correction would take place.
There WAS, and IS, no BCP (Birth Certificate Police) who made sure all bcs were filled in properly. Each state could also modify and use the standard forms to fit their own needs. For example, somewhere in that REPORT (cause it wasn’t a printout of LAW), you will note some states did not report “illegitimate” status while some did.
Somewhere around page 231, as I recall and if we are talking about the same report, you get your “race” discussion where Chinese and japanese are “races”. This was hardly rocket science stuff. As I pointed out to someone, I forget who, there is no way to determine what each state’s dept. of health, or dept. of vital statistics did or what their internal control systems were.
I think Louisiana continued to use “colored” “mulatto” and “octaroon” for a long time. Not sure when it ended. Not worth researching.
parsy