Are census questions you just won't answer?

[lynn]

to me some of it is TMI. Why can't it just ask how many people live in your house and let it be that. That's all I remember mother giving when the census people came around years ago.

Edited March 17, 2010 by lynn

[Mrs Mungo]

to me some of it is TMI. Why can't it just ask how many people live in your house and let it be that. That's all I remember mother giving when the census people came around years ago.

 

You can see all the historical census questions here:

http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/

 

The current census asks fewer questions than most of those in the past.

[Mergath]

It doesn't really bother me. The more questions they ask, the more they'll know about the people in this country, so I guess I don't see a downside.

[stripe]

In the application for my children's birth certificates, I am asked how many abortions I've had, not to mention at the doctor's office. I was asked about 8 times whether the pregnancy was planned, even to the point of one nurse asking was the pregnancy planned or just sort of a happy accident?

 

Compared to that, the census looks tame!

 

I'd like to know where the Statistical Abstract of the United States gets its data about the number of times people have intercourse and how many sex partners women have had. It looks like the latest data is more tame than it used to be. I always liked the % of married women who have had zero partners, though. (It was a number > 0.)

[StartingOver]

I research genealogy, so I have absolutely no issue with filling out the census. I wish I had the long form every single year. I have had the long form twice. ;-)

[Jennifer in MI]

We filled it out as a family last night. It was fun! There weren't any questions we didn't feel comfortable answering. I was a bit surprised, however, when they had "Negro" as a choice for race. Is that a term that is still used?

 

My 4 yo dd. wanted to be of the purple race when we asked her. LOL!! Yup. Meg and Barney.

[FairProspects]

:iagree:I was actually commenting to dh yesterday that we were doing the historians of the future no favors. When I look back at the 1850 census, I can find names, ages, occupations, net worth, who was in school the previous year, and who was married in the past year, which is a lot more useful for historial research/interpretation than the current short questions of residence and race. I wish for posterity's sake that the census would include more info.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

to me some of it is TMI. Why can't it just ask how many people live in your house and let it be that. That's all I remember mother giving when the census people came around years ago.

 

 

Well, census has always included names. Geneologists love the census. Years ago, my SIL (who is a professional geneologist) found the census form filled out by my great grandfather. It included the names of my grandmother and all her brothers and sisters! It was so cool to see that! That census was from 1910, I think. :)

 

I do agree that some of the questions are over the top, though. We had to do the long form, and it made me very uncomfortable. My dh didn't have any trouble with it though.

 

I'll just be glad when they stop calling, and stopping by, and sending us stuff!

[Jane in NC]

No.

 

Another vote of support for genealogists.

[Luanne]

and this is just a heads up ... that a thread basically like this was just closed, right?

[Imprimis]

I will be answering question #1.

 

If you're interested in a little census(less) humor ;), check out this SNL skit with Christopher Walken answering a census worker

[justamouse]

Answering all of them.

[milovany]

I will be answering question #1.

 

If you're interested in a little census(less) humor ;), check out this SNL skit with Christopher Walken answering a census worker

 

:lol:

[Snickerdoodle]

I love Christopher Walken.

[Mrs Mungo]

I love Christopher Walken.

 

He is fabulous.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Ky5R-vxns

 

 

[mommaduck]

Doing genealogy I've seen mostly: Name, gender, age, race (this was long before social programs and civil rights), state of birth, state of mother's birth, state of father's birth, occupation (including student and at home for children), rent or own (sometimes with type), mental health, and whether the person was literate or not. These are census' that were taken 70-100+ yrs ago.

[Crissy]

No.

 

Another vote of support for genealogists.

 

:iagree:

[stripe]

My grandma was very happy when I was able to drudge up some info on her mother, who died when she was very young, and whom none of her older siblings felt like telling her about. I even managed to find a bit about her mother's family. Nothing very juicy, however, just name, birthplace and occupation, those kind of things -- hey, they didn't even have those on the form this year, did they? I want to start a thread about who wants more info on the census. I'd like to fantasize that 72 years from now, people -- descendants! -- will be jumping up and down, yearning to know every fascinating detail of my life!

[FaithManor]

That was hilarious! !

 

Faith

[Night Elf]

Do they send out the long forms randomly? I only got a short form that asked the same questions, minus the race, that goes on my homeschool intent form for Georgia. I wanted the long form because it sounds so interesting!

[Momto5]

The only question that really bothered me on the short Census form I just received was the question about how each of my children was related to my husband and me. It wasn't the question really, it was the choice of answers. The question simply asked the relationship between the person listed and the head of household. The answers though included "Biological son or daughter" and "Adopted son or daughter." I just don't think it matters. I find these types of distinctions hurtful to adoptees and irrelevant. My children are my children. In fact, the birth certificates for each of my children (biological and adopted) list my husband and me as their parents. This should be enough.

 

If I sound a little winded, it's from climbing down off my soap box. ;)

[Aubrey]

The race thing bothers me. "White" is not a race. Can you imagine if the other choices were "black," "brown," and "other"?

 

I'm flexible. I'll take "caucasian" if I have to. "Anglo Saxon" would be cool. "American" would be great, although I realize the trouble with that. Maybe I could be an "Anglo Saxon American"?

 

I refuse to check "white," though, unless I'm selecting paper or maybe underwear. :glare:

[Ibbygirl]

I will be answering question #1.

 

If you're interested in a little census(less) humor ;), check out this SNL skit with Christopher Walken answering a census worker

 

:lol::lol::lol: "I have dual citizenship in the United States and Florida." lol I LOVE Christopher Walken. He's the best! hehe

[Evergreen State Sue]

I love filling out forms so I'm ready and willing to fill in all the blanks. My dh however is thinking it over, wondering why they need all the extra information. He used to work for a vacation destination company about 25-30 years ago and he remembers loading tapes his company got from the US Census. He thinks they used to get information about age, etc. to target mailings. He's a little bit skeptical about the complete confidentiality part. I think it will come down to April 1 and we will fill it out completely. BTW, why do they tell you to fill it out right away but the answers are for who is there on April 1?

[Ibbygirl]

I love filling out forms so I'm ready and willing to fill in all the blanks.

 

Can I take you with me to my next dr's visit?? ;) :D

[nmoira]

Nope, we answered them all and mailed it back.

[mommaduck]

I messed up mine. I'm ticked that there is a spot for all the different asian and pacific islands, but they don't have "white" split up??? And there is not enough room under "Other". Guess I'll be calling for another form.

[plansrme]

The only question that really bothered me on the short Census form I just received was the question about how each of my children was related to my husband and me. It wasn't the question really, it was the choice of answers. The question simply asked the relationship between the person listed and the head of household. The answers though included "Biological son or daughter" and "Adopted son or daughter." I just don't think it matters. I find these types of distinctions hurtful to adoptees and irrelevant. My children are my children. In fact, the birth certificates for each of my children (biological and adopted) list my husband and me as their parents. This should be enough.

 

If I sound a little winded, it's from climbing down off my soap box. ;)

 

Yeah, what she said. I was so annoyed by this question and refused to answer. On this basis, I actually decided not to answer anything except no. of people at this address. I wrote in a "5" and put it back in the envelope. If/when someone visits, my plan is to tell the rep. that if she can give me a good answer for why it matters to the Census Bureau whether my children are adopted or biological, I will complete the rest of the form.

 

Terri

[Parrothead]

The race thing bothers me. "White" is not a race. Can you imagine if the other choices were "black," "brown," and "other"?

 

I'm flexible. I'll take "caucasian" if I have to. "Anglo Saxon" would be cool. "American" would be great, although I realize the trouble with that. Maybe I could be an "Anglo Saxon American"?

 

I refuse to check "white," though, unless I'm selecting paper or maybe underwear. :glare:

That has bothered me for years. Anthropologically there are only 3 races. What usually gets described for race - Caucasian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern - are more tribal or cultural designations. Those three are of the same race.

[PineFarmMom]

I haven't received ours. I'll decide on a question-by-question basis. I'll likely choose "other" on race and write in American because that is what I am.

[hsmom27]

The only question that really bothered me on the short Census form I just received was the question about how each of my children was related to my husband and me. It wasn't the question really, it was the choice of answers. The question simply asked the relationship between the person listed and the head of household. The answers though included "Biological son or daughter" and "Adopted son or daughter." I just don't think it matters. I find these types of distinctions hurtful to adoptees and irrelevant. My children are my children. In fact, the birth certificates for each of my children (biological and adopted) list my husband and me as their parents. This should be enough.

 

If I sound a little winded, it's from climbing down off my soap box. ;)

 

Well this is it for us as well. I just can't see how this is relevant to anything. Also, why are children the only people where that distinction is made. Why not ask if my parents are adoptive/biological parents? Anyway, we'll be answering question #1 only, because of this question.

[3littlekeets]

Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid are all anthropologically dated and unacceptable terms. Again, those of us who are "white" see no problems with the labels :lol:.

[JeneralMom]

As an anthropologist who specializes in historical demography, I want to answer the "why is the biological/adopted issue important" question. In many instances when genetic data is not available ie. historical data, demographic data is used to extrapolate the genetics of a population. So, if man X and woman Y have 3 male children and 2 female children, we know to expect that that man's Y-chromosome will still be present in the next generation, then we can look at the male children and their male children, etc. to see how long his Y-chromosome is present in a population, how long it lasts or how quickly it disappears. Same for the mother's mtDNA. We can track diseases, mass population movements, mating patterns, etc. from this data. We can also see how historical events (wars, famines, epidemics) affect the genetic make up of populations from this type of data. I have seen several long term research projects hurt by informants not answering paternity/maternity honestly. You may wonder why this is important, but this data can be used in large scale epidemiology research and can confound the statistics.

 

It is not meant as a judgment, but accurate information is vital. It is also very important to know if children are not related to one of the parents (i.e. children have different fathers).

[stripe]

It is also very important to know if children are not related to one of the parents (i.e. children have different fathers).

Yes, it is important -- but not so much to knowing how many people live in the country.

 

I rather doubt that an unfaithful wife will declare such on a census form. Especially since the form only asks the relationship to person #1. If they are the adopted child of person #1 but the biological child of person #2, or whatever, I don't think this is made clear on the form -- whether someone is related by mother or father. Since we're not told whom to list as person #1, a woman could list herself as person #1, her husband as person #2, and the kids as people #3-5. They could all then be listed as her biological children. That tells us NOTHING about who their father(s) is/are. It also doesn't have a space for multiple relationships that would make incestuous relationships clear. I'd imagine for the purposes of disease and DNA tracking, it might help to know someone is both the father AND the partner of person #3, and both the father AND the grandchildren of people #3-8, or whatever.

[Macrina]

I am starting to wonder if I live in America at all- I have not seen a single add, gotten a single mailing, no one at my door, no phone calls....I have heard NOTHING of the census except from you guys!! lol!

[Jeannie in NJ]

I loved the dual citizenship of U.S. and Florida. Also if he can count his bobcat as his wife, Then maybe I should count my 7 cats as children along with my 2 dc. Wait are there enought spaces for 11 of us.

 

Tha skit is funny, I have always loved Chris Walken, he has such dry humor.

[angela in ohio]

You can see all the historical census questions here:

http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/

 

The current census asks fewer questions than most of those in the past.

 

It looks like the 1850s census is the one that jumped the shark.

 

I don't like the history of the reason they have always asked for race, so I won't answer it on the basis that, "they have always asked that." We won't be answering that question.

[angela in ohio]

Well, census has always included names. Geneologists love the census.

 

Not according to Mrs. Mungo's link. It wasn't until 1850 that names were included.

[Mejane]

As an anthropologist who specializes in historical demography, I want to answer the "why is the biological/adopted issue important" question. In many instances when genetic data is not available ie. historical data, demographic data is used to extrapolate the genetics of a population. So, if man X and woman Y have 3 male children and 2 female children, we know to expect that that man's Y-chromosome will still be present in the next generation, then we can look at the male children and their male children, etc. to see how long his Y-chromosome is present in a population, how long it lasts or how quickly it disappears. Same for the mother's mtDNA. We can track diseases, mass population movements, mating patterns, etc. from this data. We can also see how historical events (wars, famines, epidemics) affect the genetic make up of populations from this type of data. I have seen several long term research projects hurt by informants not answering paternity/maternity honestly. You may wonder why this is important, but this data can be used in large scale epidemiology research and can confound the statistics.

 

It is not meant as a judgment, but accurate information is vital. It is also very important to know if children are not related to one of the parents (i.e. children have different fathers).

 

Thank you! Perhaps your rational explanation will clear up some of the confusion and misconception and convince some people to report accurately.

[mommaduck]

Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid are all anthropologically dated and unacceptable terms. Again, those of us who are "white" see no problems with the labels :lol:.

 

Maybe SOME "white" ppl have no problem with it, but there ARE others that do.:glare:

[hsmom27]

As an anthropologist who specializes in historical demography, I want to answer the "why is the biological/adopted issue important" question. In many instances when genetic data is not available ie. historical data, demographic data is used to extrapolate the genetics of a population. So, if man X and woman Y have 3 male children and 2 female children, we know to expect that that man's Y-chromosome will still be present in the next generation, then we can look at the male children and their male children, etc. to see how long his Y-chromosome is present in a population, how long it lasts or how quickly it disappears. Same for the mother's mtDNA. We can track diseases, mass population movements, mating patterns, etc. from this data. We can also see how historical events (wars, famines, epidemics) affect the genetic make up of populations from this type of data. I have seen several long term research projects hurt by informants not answering paternity/maternity honestly. You may wonder why this is important, but this data can be used in large scale epidemiology research and can confound the statistics.

 

It is not meant as a judgment, but accurate information is vital. It is also very important to know if children are not related to one of the parents (i.e. children have different fathers).

 

 

But none of this data could possibly come from that one oversimplified question. Step-children for instance will not be accurately represented. They're going to be checked off as bio, but they're only biologically related to 1 parent. What about kids conceived using donor gametes. They're not bio or adopted, so what on earth would those people check? A detailed survey, honestly filled out, would give you the kind of information you're need. However, no possible scientific information could be gleaned from this one question. I'm just not buying this as the reason the question is on the census.

 

FTR, if I was presented with a lengthy survey, absent of all identifying information, I would be happy to fill it out for the reasons you listed above. What the census is asking us to do is humiliating for our children. Adoption records are SEALED. No one has access to this kind of information unless we/our children choose to release it. The census flies in the face of protecting our children by requiring that we make this information public. And yes I know it won't be for 72 years, but my kids will (hopefully) still be alive. Plus why should it go down in history if they choose to keep that information private.

Edited March 18, 2010 by littlewigglebutts
typos

[JeneralMom]

FTR, if I was presented with a lengthy survey, absent of all identifying information, I would be happy to fill it out for the reasons you listed above. What the census is asking us to do is humiliating for our children. Adoption records are SEALED. No one has access to this kind of information unless we/our children choose to release it. The census flies in the face of protecting our children by requiring that we make this information public. And yes I know it won't be for 72 years, but my kids will (hopefully) still be alive. Plus why should it go down in history if they choose to keep that information private.

 

 

This is a genuine question please do not think I am being argumentative, but I do not understand how it would "humiliate" adopted children, especially if they know they are adopted. Is it because it differentiates them from biological kids? Well, then would it humiliate the stepchildren to be differentiated from the full bio kids?

 

We only got our census form yesterday and I just opened it. I see that all questions refer back to the Person #1, so that would complicate things in terms of relatedness to both parents, and I can see if the child is adopted by one parent but biological of one it could confuse things.

 

Also, mis-designations on paternity/maternity don't necessarily mean a woman cheated but she may have been pg when she married the husband but still lists husband as "father" in a biological sense. I had a friend who met and became involved with her husband a few days after she got pregnant from a 1 night stand. She did not become intimately involved with her future husband until after she realized she was pg, but he was with her when she took the test, gave birth, raised the child, etc so he is her father, but not in the biological sense. She would always fill out forms (medical, etc) as though he was (like listing his genetic history) until I explained to her that she was giving false information which could negatively affect her daughter

[3littlekeets]

Maybe SOME "white" ppl have no problem with it, but there ARE others that do.:glare:

 

 

I was being sarcastic.... you are correct some "white" people don't see the offensiveness of the labels. I was responding to someone who said she was "Caucasian" not white and pointing out that it was indeed derogatory b/c it was derived from a trio of offensive labels. Sorry if that didn't' come across correctly. :tongue_smilie:

[plansrme]

Thank you! Perhaps your rational explanation will clear up some of the confusion and misconception and convince some people to report accurately.

 

Nope, not this one. The purpose of the census is to count, not to identify DNA for large-scale epidemiology projects.

 

Terri

[mtollie]

I just wanted to say, that as an adoptee, I would not be "humiliated" at all because my adoption status was listed on a census form, or any form for that matter. In fact, I would probably be humiliated if it weren't. It makes it seem as if we need to hide the fact that we're adopted. Although it's not really anyone else's business, it's pretty common knowledge that it's best for adoptees to know they are adopted, so there's no reason to keep it sealed from anyone. JMHO....

[hsmom27]

Humiliated is probably too strong of a word. My DH is adopted and he wouldn't want his adoption to be part of a public census record. He's perfectly open in talking about his adoption when he sees fit. As far as our own adopted children, they are a different ethnicity than my DH and I. We will always be open to discussing any aspect of their adoptions that they want to discuss. And when they're teenagers, we can ask them how/if they want us to answer these kind of census questions. For now, they're too young. I want them to decide for themselves when/if they want this information to be public record.

 

And because they look nothing like DH and myself, people routinely ask if they are adopted. And they ask in front of my children. Admittedly, if we we all had the same skin color, this wouldn't be an issue. But it has the potential to be hurtful for any child, if they are continually singled out. I just wanted to point out that I have yet to see a good reason for this differentiation between adopted/biological children. And I'm done.:)

[Aubrey]

I was being sarcastic.... you are correct some "white" people don't see the offensiveness of the labels. I was responding to someone who said she was "Caucasian" not white and pointing out that it was indeed derogatory b/c it was derived from a trio of offensive labels. Sorry if that didn't' come across correctly. :tongue_smilie:

 

"Caucasian" is derogatory? :lol: I guess there are more embarrassing mistakes to make.

 

I feel like the guy from Much Ado--"Mark it down. I. am. an a$$." :lol:

 

By golly, mark it down. I. am. a caucasian! :blush:

[TravelingChris]

I filled it out and sent it back on Wednesday. I filled out everything but put down human in the race column. I don't believe in the usefulness of race categories and refuse to go along with that system.

[mommaduck]

I was being sarcastic.... you are correct some "white" people don't see the offensiveness of the labels. I was responding to someone who said she was "Caucasian" not white and pointing out that it was indeed derogatory b/c it was derived from a trio of offensive labels. Sorry if that didn't' come across correctly. :tongue_smilie:

 

My apologies, I'm overtired (see Renters Frustration thread LOL!) :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't like the history of the reason they have always asked for race, so I won't answer it on the basis that, "they have always asked that." We won't be answering that question.

 

That wasn't the answer at all. The answer as to why they asked about race is that the states are mandated to protect voting rights of minorities. They can't do that without appropriate information.