> I've asked the person that told me, in June/July 1970, about the > 1970 census when I visited her (from the UK), whether she > remembers the conversation, and the book. > > She replied "I don't remember the particulars about being > polka-dotted or striped, but I do remember that if you said you > were Indian in some locations you were to be listed as negro and > in some locations as Mexican. The instructions you saw at the > > http://www.ipums.umn.edu/~pipums/voliii/inst1970.html > > website are for the respondents filling out the form. The > instructions I talked about were those given to the census-taker > who did home visits on a sample of the population." > I now wonder if the "book" was not so much for the questionnaire, > but > http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/ssc/ssdc/codebooks/cb0018.html > that households w for the analysis - I notice from ere divided > into negro and non-negro, a division that "fits" my friend's > memory better than does the questionnaire itself, though I can > see (knowing the ethnic background of her children) that the > conversation might have started with question 13b. > > In which case my comment was irrelevant to a genealogical > newsgroup - I apologise. > > "cecilia" <myths@ic24.net> Cecilla: I think I will let the researcher in 2042 figure this one out! You are correct in saying the quotation I posted was from the instructions to the respondent and not the enumerator. I clicked on a link that CLEARLY said "1970 instructions to the Enumerator" and then started searching for "the race question" without reading the heading - which explained what the document was. I guess most of the "enumerators" were the people who filled out the forms! <g> I confess to not spending much time with the other document you provide a link for, except to note it appears to be a document on data sampling analysis rather than collection. And, yes, 13b could have been the trigger, but who knows. It remains puzzling to me, why a "book" would tell people to count someone in one category in one area and one with the same make up as something else in another area. Perhaps something to do with some sort of federal aid based on ethnicity. In any case, in 2042, the returns will have to speak for themselves - just like they do now, which is not much of a comfort! The Census Bureau people undoubtedly have their reasons for what they do (as murky as these may be). Three years ago many of us puzzled over this one: You were supposed to list the household as it existed on a specific date (March 1?), but they badgered you to get the form in advance of the date. On a statistical level, this won't make much of a difference, but a genealogist of the future may have a problem if there was a birth in the family after the form was mailed in but before the official census date! And I noticed what will be another problem for future generations in looking over the instructions again just now. One of the questions asked where the child was born - and the instructions tell you that if the child was born in a hospital to enter the state of residence of the mother. We lived in Virginia in 1968 when our oldest child was born in a hospital in the District of Columbia. If we filled out the form correctly, it will say he was born in Virginia. A researcher looking in Virginia for a birth record for the child won't have much luck - it's in D.C.! Thanks for an interesting - and probably revealing - exchange. Richard > I've asked the person that told me, in June/July 1970, about the > 1970 census when I visited her (from the UK), whether she > remembers the conversation, and the book. > > She replied "I don't remember the particulars about being > polka-dotted or striped, but I do remember that if you said you > were Indian in some locations you were to be listed as negro and > in some locations as Mexican. The instructions you saw at the > > http://www.ipums.umn.edu/~pipums/voliii/inst1970.html > > website are for the respondents filling out the form. The > instructions I talked about were those given to the census-taker > who did home visits on a sample of the population." > I now wonder if the "book" was not so much for the questionnaire, > but > http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/ssc/ssdc/codebooks/cb0018.html > that households w for the analysis - I notice from ere divided > into negro and non-negro, a division that "fits" my friend's > memory better than does the questionnaire itself, though I can > see (knowing the ethnic background of her children) that the > conversation might have started with question 13b. > > In which case my comment was irrelevant to a genealogical > newsgroup - I apologise. > > "cecilia" <myths@ic24.net>