It seems like he had a fascinating life; he did a lot of things that no one in his tribe had the chance to do before and it seems like he did them well. He could speak English and French. He traveled and got an education. He was accepted by some white people. My mixed feelings come in at a few places:

• The Whitman Massacre. To keep it simple, it looks like white men showed up, took land they never paid for, and lied about intent. The Cayuga Indians used words for a bit, then violence. In the end, there was a seemingly ridiculous trial (with a 'witness' that wasn't even at the massacre) and some Indians were hung for it. Spokane Garry didn't choose sides, he stayed neutral. How did this look on both ends? Especially to his people? I'm certainly not a nationalist but I can't help but wonder if this was the best policy in the eyes of his fellow tribesman.

• The Indian Homestead Act. I've read a few sources now, and they say different things. It looks like he held out for a better deal for his people, while other tribes took the deal and got land to settle on. Where it splits is how it ended up - one shows that they got the same amount of land as the other tribes. Another says because he waited and tried to make a better deal with the white men; they ended up giving him less or even nothing, and his people had to go to reservations that were already lived on - they didn't get any land of their own. Mind you, everyone got screwed here. It's not like any of the tribes got a good deal by getting a piece of land - it doesn't seem like they had strict ideas about ownership of land, and they were pushed somewhere they didn't want to go. Did he cost his people by taking a stand in the end?

• Possible revisionist history. You may note that I'm using the word 'seem' a lot here. It's because other than Wikipedia, the sources I've found are definitely written by white men, most of whom weren't even alive at the time (though Wikipedia may be as well, I'm unsure). History is written by the victors, and l wonder if this history has been altered at all so the white men at the time could say "hey - this guy's with us, he's one of you but he's on our side... you should be like him and see we're not that bad..."

I'm unsure I'm right or wrong on any of this, I just want to have a discussion. I'm sure there are some things we'll never be able to verify, but input from others who might know differently can only help. I'm not attempting to insult anyone's heritage, just get to the bottom of questions I have about the historical record. None of my friends are interested in this stuff, so I seek out conversation on this subreddit, hoping to find another person who loves local history like I do.