I say fill out the questions you are comfortable with and not any you are not. I don't mind answering some of the others, but a few I won't be filling out either.

I don't get why people are so freaked out just by a few simple questions. I received my census in the mail and I'll be filling it out, especially the important ones that SIN-Imperium mentioned. Some people are just so paranoid. Seriously, most of the questions are pretty impersonal. If they want to know how much I make, who cares. The IRS already does. When you think about it, the questions they are asking if they really wanted to know those things, they could find them out anyway. If someone really wanted to know the information asked in the census for "spying" purposes, there really isn't anything to stop them from finding out without too much hassle.

At least this information is going toward benefitting the common citizen, unlike the information from the PATRIOT Act that is going toward "protecting" us.

Yeah I live in the US. I just don't want to give them my phone number. I don't get telemarketing calls anymore and the only bothersome calls I get now are mostly survey calls which I actually answer having done that kind of work before. I am not "freaked" out, and I am actually looking forward to answering a few because I am hoping I am hoping my area gained a little more diversity since the last numbers were posted. It seems like I see a few more like faces around here these days.

As you said. It's a free country, and I am not going to judge people who choose not to answer all the questions even if i answer most of them myself. I am not that self-centric.

No, don't necessarily lie. Say that you are N+1 people, have a poor school system, are all vegetarians, and shop in small stores only or when possible.

Then, if any of these things are false, lie in order to make them true (as in, say this no matter what the truth is).

THen, sir, you are correctly filling out a census.

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

YW.  I worked it ten years ago and was part of the group that brought out, tested and ran the handhelds this time around.  I'll be doing field work this coming week for a couple of months.  Dubai actually did its own census with those very same handhelds and it went wonderfully.  The U.S. Census had issues because when they set up the computer network for the entire country it relied on a central bank of servers and storage computers and they automated everything thought it--Windows, Office suites, the proprietary handheld software, the third party callling programs--it was a mess and they completely underestimated development time, bandwidth needed and staff required to maintain.  The technology worked, it just wasn't thoroughly tested and proofed before going live and started with modified software that was constantly in flux.

In WWII, the census DIDN'T  give out personal info. The Census director told the president of the United States, "No".

The "extra" questions people freak about are regarding things the current governments (including states) have targeted as affecting budget concerns.  Same sex couples as an example will allow them to set a dollar cost if states or the fed allow same sex marriage.  How much will it cost?  What programs will it take?  With the info they get they can determine what it will cost if new laws are enacted.  That's a bipartisan agenda though the particular issues looked at are a reflection of where legislation might be heading.  The census doesn't cause that, just evaluates the impact. Same thing with illegal residents.  They try to estimate how many are in the healthcare system, etc. so they can determine how it effects budgets and the economy--not to ID and hunt them down and deport them.

A census is actually mandated by federal law and takes a constitutional amendment to alter or do away with and its personal identity information is by law confidential and not releasable to other government agencies.  The Founding Fathers initiated it and the first one was overseen by the vice president and 14 or so deputies who used about 500 local sherrifs and the like to go door to door with a tally sheet.  We have computers now and a lot more sophisticated infrastructure that governemnt finances so the questions have changed.

Except that American is a nationality, not a race.

'Human' is a better answer, I would think.

I wouldn't think race was important either... if i was white. Since I am not, I get fairly frequent reminders how important it is. You'd have to have blinders on to think the only people who obsess about race is in one political party.

Of course race is important. Hell, politics, Socio-economics, and family dynasties are all incredibly important.

Just look at the former Empire of Alexander the Great.

After he died, one general took over Greece and Macedonia (The Western World), one General Took over the Selucids (Middle East), and another general took over Egypt (North Africa).

The West of course eventually expanded their cultural influence on a massive scale, while the Middle East was, at first, far more sucessful than the west. And if you think about it, North Africa kind of plays to its own tune, even though Egypt could be considered part of the Middle East for religious reasons if nothing else. Its almost a Moors, Saracens, Catholics division.

And, while the Northern Europeans are quite racially different, for the longest time most Mediteranneans were more or less the same racially.

In the end, its truly your own mind's perception that brings race to a certain level of importance within yourself. However, I AM white, was born into the upper-middle class, and was born an American citizen in THE SOUTH!!!! so ... yea I can't exactly expect you to feel empathetic about my racial views, or to even believe that "The Mind preceeds all Experience". Cause it will just sound like some high and mighty self-righteous judge who hasn't suffered an ounce of racial pain (HIS) entire life.

So did I, and race is very important to the Japanese.

Race is only important when one wants to make a certain race more important than another, for whatever reason.

And for whichever reason - making one race more important than any other, is simply racism.

Which means that when the Census asks for your race, they are simply being racist for racist means.

Then, Thoumsin, perhaps the only Indians that should allow to call themselves Indian are the true-blooded Indus River Valley indians, cause, you know, most of the Modern Indians come from a lineage of inter-marriage between Aryans and Indus.

Cause, one of the Aryan tribes migrated from the Caspian sea to India, and that destroyed the Indus River Valley Civilization (they got conquered and enslaved/integrated) and kickstarted the new Caste System of India which transmigrated to the river ganges. (the aryans started the Caste Sytem Warriors > Priests > Commoners).

so, technically Indians are Aryan/Indians?

Also, the Saracens/Mamluks/modern Day Iraqi and Iranians are descended from the second Aryan tribe. They were the first to use heavily armored horse archers.

The aryans were simply a warlike nomadic tribe of IndoEuropeans who originiated in culture around the Caspian Sea. They migrated south initially, and then some went back Northwest.

Yes, I realize that aryan is practically a Dirty Word and I hope you will realise I am only being historical and am not trying to start a flame war. I think some people would be interested to hear that the "aryan" cutural background sprung forth many different races and modern cultures. I think it only strengthenes my point that we are all originally related.

If you wanted to talk about "Native Americans" then maybe you should call them Russian.

Or, if you go back even farther, we are all technically African.

So everyone is related ... and I see no reason why a person who feels justified in their racial background to put "American" instead of whatever their racial origin happens to be.

Eh, not really.  It was not called America when they roamed freely.  It was named America after one Italian figured out the other Italian had screwed up.  They could more accurately be called Kansans, Iowans, or similar names since those state names are actually derived from their language with a basis in what they were calling the land.