I got the whole PDF book of 1961 Vital Statistics . It's real.
An old FR thread from 2009
The United States did not use the word "African" for birth certificates in 1961 - Obama's does!
Vital Statistics of the United States ^ | 1961 | U.S. Dept. of Health
Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:00:24 PM 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.""
-end snip-
- -- - - -
Fred you got anything to add?
Important detail, yes...could I please ask you to post this information to a research thread, link below:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2702976/posts
It seems obvious where the ‘African’ came from, doesn’t it? From the ‘application’ that was lodged, and obviously kept on file at the HDOH...NEVER CERTIFIED.
I don’t doubt the provenance of the document or its assertions. However, we know that the Hawaii DoH used “caucasian” rather than “”white.” So the document is of little help, IMO, because we can establish that Hawaii didn’t conform to the document’s categorization of the most populous race in U.S.