House of Moytoy Discussion
11:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This article should not be deleted. It needs to be edited instead. It is the only article returned by a search for the term "Moytoy" which is a significant name in Cherokee history and genealogy. In addition, the term "House of Moytoy" refers to the Cherokee family of English and Shawnee origin. They are male-line descendants of an English trader, Thomas Pasmere Carpenter, whose family was related to Baron Carpenter of Killaghy and the Earl of Tyrconnell. Ref: G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume III, page 54. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.
This article holds significance in Native American culture. I have requested arbitration. The article should not have been swiped clean without discussion. Odestiny (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete for lack of reliable sources and substantial doubts. There were two Chiefs Moytoy, and they did have influential relatives, but the leap from that to a "House of Moytoy" depends on Eurocentric assumptions. WillOakland (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Subsequent comments should be made below. -- BobC 15:42, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
My Analysis [8 May 2010]
Let me start by saying I understand both sides of the argument: the purist side of me agrees with the viewpoint that we should strive to research and obtain a literal, substantiated and documented history of the facts, with no room for suppositions, presumptions or hypotheses. The other more fundamentally imaginative side of me looks for a good story based on facts, but complemented by novelty, imagination, common sense and creative analysis (i.e. “thinking out of the box”).
I believe the “House of Moytoy” article is a historically-based supposition of the few known facts from a Eurocentric mind-set (both now and in the past), interwoven with non-documented Cherokee lore passed down through the generations until recorded by early explorers, anthropological researchers and Native American historians, and the creative analysis of the article’s contributors.
As can be seen by looking at the history pages in a number of Cherokee personalities included on Wikipedia, modern-day fact-fanatics will not be satisfied with anything less than a written record documented at the source and time of the event, of which very little had been recorded or has been found in Cherokee history (which historically has more evidence than other native American tribes due to its creation of the Sequoyan alphabet). Today we genealogical and cultural researchers rely on the little documented evidence of Cherokee life, culture and history as recorded by 17th and 18th century explorers, government agents, missionaries, and those from colonial roots who intermarried into the Cherokee Nation.
While American Indian purists and scholarly revisionists may play their parts in editing (i.e. "slashing apart") unproven biographies of these Cherokee leaders in the Wikipedia community, although not specifically stated or inferred, political correctness may also be an underlying attitude that seems to justify rejecting articles of Native American "history" in the Wikipedia community. Since its inception, university professors, high school proctors, and grade school teachers alike have rejected the use of Wikipedia for student reports and theme papers. Now that Wikipedia is trying to clean up its image, some would prefer to erase unproven or undocumented history --- or even cleanse documented history recorded with so-called Eurocentric leanings that may be unsubstantiated by more politically correct versions. That to me seems nonsensical and just as biased unless they can replace it with other known facts and a valid competing historical record.
If this story in question was in fact based upon "geneaological fantasies that have grown up in recent years, and widely discredited by reputable, credible geneaologists," then I challenge the commentator to cite those credible references for the rest of us who may not have been privy to that information, not just expect us to accept a vague reference to a Google search. (The fact that this self-pronounced expert can’t even correctly spell the word "genealogy" does little to add credibility to the claim of more knowledgeable uncited sources.)
While the Cherokee blood running through my veins is vastly engulfed by the amount of European blood, I too want the true story of my distant Cherokee lineage known. From what I've read, it is a fascinating story, if even only a portion of what I've read can be believed. While it may not be able to be shown as a proven fact, it seems plausible to me, based on the number of known, recorded inter-relationships between Indians of different tribes and European settlers and explorers during the 17th and 18th centuries, is that the Cherokee Nation became what it was because of European influence and the cross-marriage between Indians and European settlers. I believe all five so-called "Civilized Tribes" earned that distinction because of these inter-relationships in varying degrees.
While the direct connection between Thomas Pasmere Carpenter and Moytoy may not be proven, I believe it is credible enough, in the absence of more definitive and substantiated information, to be at least recorded for analysis, possibly not as fact, but as a reasonable and plausible possibility.
Supportive Pieces of the Puzzle
Folklore, legends, and what may be considered today as urban myths, have their origins in factual events or in what may have passed for historical reality, or at least believability. Looking at the Cherokee people as a homogenous group unconnected with outside forces and non-Indian influences is both culturally nieve and historically ignorant.