Your question is a little confusing toward the end. There are multiple nations within the Native community so there wouldn't be a shared history as far as major events go. The Bloody Island Massacre would be a major event to Pomo history while the Trail of Tears wouldn't be relevant despite the larger number of deaths.

Hi, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link well-written and sourced answers in other subs, but if you're interested, /u/anthropology_nerd wrote a nine-part series titled "Myths of Conquest" that basically goes through the history of Mexico post-contact and their interactions with the Spanish. It's titled "Myths of Conquest" because /u/anthropology_nerd addresses common misconceptions about the Conquistadors and Spanish policy in Mexico, most of which surrounds an idea that the natives there really had no part.

/u/anthropology_nerd mostly addresses these misconceptions by focusing on the narrative in a fuller light, which usually means addressing the Native American side of things. He characterizes the "conquest" as a Native American revolt with minor Spanish intrigue, and Cortez largely as a buffoon.

Basically, Native Americans are much less helpless than they are usually characterized, in Mexico in this particular instance, but also in North America, where Indian wars against Europeans were actually being constantly fought for centuries.

Native American armies quickly adapted to Spanish weaponry, quickly developing duck-and-cover techniques in response to cannon fire and staging battles on hills and environments where horses are rendered useless or are disadvantaged. Armed conflicts in the area involved Native American armies numbering in the thousands, with Spanish forces of ~450 and, later 1,300. During the two year campaign against the Triple Alliance, about 2,000 Spaniards and 200,000 native allies to the Spanish fought in the campaign. Remember, that's only one side.

/u/anthropology_nerd nerd also covers life before the establishment of missions, mission life, and post-mission life. I've linked to the last part of the series because it has links to all the other parts, and he wrote it much better than me.

I highly recommend this book: The Dull Knifes of Pine Ridge: A Lakota Odyssey. It's a very readable book and commonly assigned in college history courses. It follows the story of 4 generations of a family of Lakota/Cheyenne from Wounded Knee through the Vietnam War and includes bits and pieces from present-day when the book was written. I think this book explains exactly what your question is asking--at least from the perspective of these particular American Indians.

A recent and truly wonderful book written by a "native" offering a "native account" (as well as great discussion of the problems with using such terms) of North American history since European contact is The Inconvenient Indian by Thomas King. Rich in historical detail, sophisticated in its analysis, written in plain and accessible language, and deliciously, if sardonically, funny . . . there's no other book like it. I highly recommend it as a great place to start. Here's a review from the Globe and Mail.

Edit: While the review in the Globe (published in Toronto) focuses on what a Canadian audience might take from the book, the book covers both the US and Canada equally.