Layli Long Soldier's "38"

I'm reading Whereas, by Layli Long Soldier, and in the poem "38," linked here, I learned some history about the Dakota 38 and the "Sioux Uprising" of 1862, also known as "The Dakota War of 1862" (as an aside, this is the same historical event involved in the controversy at the Walker Art Center over the sculpture, "Scaffold." Long Soldier's poem was published by Graywolf, out of Minneapolis. It wouldn't surprise me if the poem was part of what catalyzed the Walker's awareness of the issue, but... that's just me speculating). I learned many things in the poem: I learned about the 38 men who were executed. I learned about Lincoln's presidency and the historical record of his presidency. I learned about the commemorative horseback ride each winter, preserving the memory of the events and of the 38 who were executed.

And I learned of Andrew Myrick, who was killed in that conflict. When asked about the condition of the starving Dakota indians near Mankato, he said "let them eat grass." When he was killed, his mouth was stuffed with grass. It's stunning history. The poem is clear and powerful. I was stricken by the name Andrew Myrick because the story of the town where I live, La Crosse, Wisconsin, is that it was "founded" by Nathan Myrick. Nathan and Andrew were brothers. In doing just a little bit of internet research, I found a webpage sponsored by the La Crosse Chamber of Commerce that said these things:

"From A History of La Crosse County, 1891: A region inhabited by savages, jealous, revengeful and degraded. The nearest place at which supplies could be obtained, or social amenities cultivated, distant a journey of several days. In health it must have been cheerless, in sickness simply desolating. This was the condition of affairs when Nathan Myrick, the pioneer settler of La Crosse County, landed opposite the foot of Main street, in the present city, on the afternoon of November 9, 1841."

I'm not sure why our Chamber of Commerce wants to endorse a characterization like that by putting it out directly online, without any historical context. I can understand that it's a historical document of interest, but doesn't it appear as if the Chamber is supporting the characterization of Native Americans as "savages?" It seems like rather than quoting the 1891 history, they could present a more balanced account.