Part Six: The Replies. What the institutions said when one family asked to be counted

Disclosure: Len Bagley is the founder of Bagley Enterprises, which owns True News, and deputy chief minister of PAAN Ministry, the Private Aboriginal American National Ministry. He wrote the earlier letters below as a private citizen and, from March 2026, in his capacity with the Ministry. This is analysis: Part Six of his published series. Every quotation from an institution below is taken from that institution's own email. Where an institution did not answer, that is stated, and nothing is put in its mouth.

For more than a year I have asked the institutions that hold the records, the remains and the reference data one question in many forms: has anyone ever tested the classification my family was given? I wrote to about 50 of them in 13 countries, plus the United Nations and the African Union. This part of the series is the record of what I asked and what they said, side by side, so readers can judge the exchange for themselves and not just my side of it.

What I asked

The requests were the same at heart. Show me the records from 1500 to 1800 that describe the people of the Southeastern and Eastern Woodlands. Tell me how cultural affiliation is decided for the remains of those people, and on what evidence. And compare my DNA, or the DNA of families like mine whose documented lineages never leave Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida, against the pre-contact remains of those same regions. That last test is the only one that can settle whether aboriginal and indigenous lineages were reclassified, and it has never been done.

The Smithsonian

On December 10, 2025, I sent a request for scientific and archival review to about 15 Smithsonian offices. Thirteen of the addresses, including the repatriation office, the anthropology department, the archives, the science office and the Freedom of Information office, returned my message undelivered. The central inbox sent an automatic reply.

The National Museum of the American Indian answered the same day: "The Smithsonian does not have the capacity to provide resources on genealogical research." I wrote back that I was not asking for genealogy. On January 10, 2026, I sent a Second Notice asking for an accounting of cultural-affiliation determinations, evidentiary standards and custodial practices. On January 12 the museum replied in writing: "We understand that this request is not intended to seek assistance with individual genealogical research or personal lineage determinations, and we will treat the January 10, 2026 Second Notice as controlling for purposes of review, response, and administrative recordkeeping."

No review followed. On February 14, the museum's acting associate director for research answered the same request this way: "Unfortunately, we do not have the resources at the NMAI to fully address the genealogy questions you mention below." She suggested the National Archives.

The first answer on substance came eight months later, and only after I wrote as a news outlet. On October 15, 2026, the National Museum of Natural History's director of public affairs replied to four questions:

• On the comparison I had asked for since December: "While we would like to be helpful, unfortunately we are unable to accommodate this request. This is not a service that the museum offers."

• On the remains themselves: the museum's Repatriation Office "has evaluated the cultural affiliation of Native American human remains from locations within Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. At the present time, none of these remains have been found to be culturally unidentifiable. We have not yet had a repatriation request for human remains from South Carolina and therefore have not assessed these individuals."

• On method: it uses the lines of evidence in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, including "geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, oral traditional, historical, or other relevant information or expert opinion."

• On who may ask: researchers may file an access request, "however, submission of the form is not a guarantee that access will be granted. Requests for access to Native American human remains must have tribal approval."

What the Smithsonian's answer means

The museum is following the law as written. NAGPRA gives standing to federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native villages and Native Hawaiian organizations, and the museum assesses remains when one of them asks.

My argument is about what that leaves out. The law's own list of evidence includes biology and kinship. But the only people who can start an assessment, and the only people who can approve access to the remains, are the groups the law already recognizes. A family whose lineage was recorded as "Negro" or "Colored" before the present tribal rolls existed cannot ask, cannot get access without a tribe's permission, and cannot get the comparison, because it is "not a service that the museum offers." South Carolina's remains have never been assessed at all, because no recognized tribe has asked. The question of who these people were can only be opened by the parties whose answer is already assumed. That is a closed loop, and it is why, in my view, no equitable decision can ever be reached inside it.

The DNA companies

The companies' replies were set out in full in Part Two. In short, AncestryDNA said its methods are "proprietary and not released upon request," that its "panels are based on modern indigenous genetic segments whereas other companies may focus on ancient population origins," and that it "does not provide sworn statements or legal declarations." Living DNA confirmed that "African American individuals are not included in West or Central African reference populations," said ancient-DNA tools "are not peer-reviewed instruments," and closed the correspondence with its position "unchanged." African Ancestry has sent only automatic replies. GEDmatch's owner, Verogen, never received my letters: its addresses bounced. On October 12, GEDmatch's support desk wrote that it would "review your email and get back to you." None of the four commented by True News's October 14 deadline.

The United Nations

The UN's two tracks answered very differently.

The Permanent Forum on People of African Descent replied within two days. It explained that its mandate "is established by United Nations General Assembly resolution 75/314" and can only be changed by that body, and pointed to the Durban Declaration. It did not address whether the classification "of African descent" has ever been tested for the population it counts. When I asked only how to submit a written contribution, it opened the door: it added me to its mailing list and sent its call for inputs for the sixth session.

The offices responsible for Indigenous peoples did not answer at all. Since October 4, 2025, I have sent the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Indigenous section of the UN human rights office a submission and at least five follow-ups. In twelve months, none has replied. One of their published addresses no longer accepts mail.

Abroad: the archives

Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History logged my request, assigned it a control number and answered on its 10-day deadline. Its answer is the clearest statement of principle in this whole record: "the identity of Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples is currently considered fundamentally a matter of self-identification. That is, it is the peoples, communities, and individuals themselves who define their identity affiliations... this Institute does not define or designate identity affiliations." In the United States, by contrast, standing depends on federal recognition.

Others answered politely and pointed elsewhere. The Vatican Apostolic Archive said it "doesn't hold documents related to the topic of your interest." The archive of Propaganda Fide, which holds missionary records, sent the forms to apply. Portugal's national archives sent its online catalogue and suggested search terms. The United Kingdom's National Archives said it holds records of early contact with Indigenous peoples but that they are hard to find by keyword. The Royal Anthropological Institute's archives begin in the 1800s, too late for the period. Spain's Historical National Archive asked me to register as an online user before it would process the request.

Most did not answer, because they could not receive the request. Nine Spanish archive and ministry addresses, including the Archivo General de Indias, bounced. So did the Royal Archives at Windsor, France's national archives and the Musée du quai Branly, the Vatican Library, Brazil's National Museum, Peru's national archive, the National Library of China and the African Union's diaspora directorate. In all, more than 40 addresses returned my requests undelivered.

The U.S. government

The Interior Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs both answered my Freedom of Information request for records of the reclassification of Black Indigenous people between 1830 and 1900 the next day, with the same message: I had sent it by email rather than through one of the department's approved forms. My congressional representative, Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, received an oversight request on January 31, 2026, citing H.R. 1294 (2007), in which Congress acknowledged that federal records were destroyed. By my notes, a staff member confirmed on February 3 that the file was in the system, and another said on February 18 that it had been escalated and assigned; neither gave a case number. On March 6, writing for PAAN Ministry, I sent a final notice with a deadline of March 20.

On March 11 the office's deputy chief of staff and district director, Lauren Cox, answered the January request in writing. "Unfortunately, what you are seeking assistance with is not a matter of individual congressional casework," she wrote. "No congressional office can force a GAO or Inspector General review, nor can we appoint an independent special master." She pointed me to the complaint forms of the Government Accountability Office and the Interior Department's Inspector General, and named the House Committee on Natural Resources as the committee with oversight of the Interior Department: "Congresswoman Scanlon is not on this committee... We have passed your concerns along to the committee of jurisdiction." The reply did not mention the March 6 notice, and gave no case or referral number. The committee has never contacted me or the Ministry.

The record, by the numbers

• Answered on substance: the Smithsonian's natural history museum (after a press request), Mexico's INAH, the UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent, the UK National Archives, the Royal Anthropological Institute, the Vatican Apostolic Archive, Portugal's national archives, AncestryDNA, Living DNA.

• Answered on procedure only (register, use a form, try somewhere else): the National Museum of the American Indian (three times, twice calling the request "genealogy"), the Interior Department and Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rep. Scanlon's office (which referred the matter to a House committee that never made contact), Spain's Historical National Archive, Propaganda Fide, the UK Parliamentary Archives, the British Museum, GEDmatch.

• No answer in up to a year: the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the UN human rights office's Indigenous section, the House Committee on Natural Resources, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, the British Library, the Bodleian Library, African Ancestry, and research academies in Russia and China.

• Could not be reached: more than 40 addresses.

What comes next

Several doors in this record are open, and I will walk through them and report back: the Smithsonian's collections-access form, the Interior Department's FOIA portal, the GAO and Interior Inspector General complaint forms, Spain's online registration, Propaganda Fide's application and the UN Permanent Forum's call for written inputs. If any institution named here wishes to add to or correct its reply, True News will publish it in full.

The record shows one thing plainly. The question of who the pre-contact people of the Southeast were, and whether their descendants were written out of that history, has been asked of nearly every institution that could answer it. The ones that replied either could not, were not allowed to, or said it was not their service.

Originally published by True News: https://truenews.bagleyenterprises.net/stories/224