If the father is shown as number 9, OTHER NON WHITE and the mother is CAUCASIAN, I have no idea what the supervisor might instruct. Our interest as for as I can see, isn’t how the offspring was classified, our interest is purely to try to make sense of the AFRICAN on the supposed birth certificate, even though it is a forgery...
Assuming he was the father of a child born in Hawaii in 1961, what maybe should appear on that document is AFRICAN-LUO.
As the result of which he still would have ended up with the dreaded NEGRO classification.
Isn’t this discussion centred around the idea that the birth was somehow fraudulently reported by the Dunhams, heaven knows how long after the event?
In fact, that the word AFRICAN was used is more of an indication that it was the Kenyan HIMSELF who refused to use the term NEGRO.
No anti-colonial as he was, would allow that designation to be applied to themselves. It’s a term that connotes SLAVERY. He wasn’t an african-american negro.
HE WAS AN AFRICAN.
“As the result of which he still would have ended up with the dreaded NEGRO classification.”
Maybe, the August 14th, 1961 revised instructions say this
“If the racial entry is “C,” “Col.,” “Black,” “Brown,” or “A.A,” “Afro-American,” and the birthplace is the United States, consider the parent’s race as Negro. If the birthplace of parent is not in the United States code as other nonwhite.”
The Cold Case Posse says that the 1960 instruction manual says something different but they have not said what is different or shown the manual. Over at ORYR a poster by the name of Brian Reilly says their is a February, 1961 instruction manual but he says he hasn’t seen it. BTW, Mr. Reilly says he was one of the original Sunshine Tea Party members who petitioned Sheriff Arpaio to conduct an investigation.
“In fact, that the word AFRICAN was used is more of an indication that it was the Kenyan HIMSELF who refused to use the term NEGRO.”
I agree. IMO, the term “African” was put on the original BC back in 1961, not by some forger in 2007.