my friend says that a lot of the things I learn online are manipulated history written by people that only want you to see certain sides of something

I have to say, we are human beings after all. We do have conscious and subconscious biases.

The funny thing is that he's right, but not for the reasons he's saying. This is a function of all humans. As you've already observed, the human is a stupid, selfish, blinkered creature with entirely too many prejudices, preconceptions, and biases, and a very sharply limited point of view. It is perfectly possible for a human to give a completely inaccurate picture of what is going on without even lying.

The problem is that history deals with humans. History is created by humans, written by humans, written for humans, studied by humans, interpreted by humans, read by humans.

how do I know which source of history is the truth?

The above conditions mean that there's an inherent difficulty here. This question as you're asking is the wrong question. We don't do 'truth' or 'objectivity' in this business. Give that quest up now.

how do I know if this is the history that actually happened and this is the history that is taught in all the other areas of the world?

People can barely agree on what to have for dinner tonight; they are even less capable of agreeing on what actually happened. If you put me, a Filipino, opposite an American, and have us discuss what the American understands as the Philippine Insurrection and what we Filipinos understand as the American conquest of the Philippines...where is truth there? Is there manipulation? Or is that just the typical consequence of two different points of view on the same events?

All of this is a known hazard in the field of history, and the good news is, historians know how to deal with this, in much the same way as restaurant kitchens know how to deal with fires and knives. They have such a thing as the historical method, the same way as there is a scientific method. Here are some previous threads for you to consider:

• u/mikedash examines the matter of bias here,
• u/Georgy_K_Zhukov does the same here,
• and u/itsallfolklore considers 'objective history'.

Also, see next post.

History and 'truth' aren't precisely the same thing - history is about taking often conflicting evidence sources, and stitching them together in a plausible way. There is rarely an agreed single truth, outside of factoids. So for instance - it is agreed that King Henry VIII of England followed Henry VII of England - and all sources agree that he had 6 wives and dit the reformation of the English Church. But interpretations of why he did this, will vary - and no single one of these is absolutely 'true' - this is why there are historical debates. So what I'll do in my answer is try to outline the process you should do when you're dealing with historical sources.

First you have to know what type of source you are dealing with: is it primary or secondary. Primary = eyewitness/contemporary document - although this definition can be stretched e.g. primary sources for Roman history might be like a few hundred years after the events.Secondary = a modern historian/later historian commenting on the primary data. There's also tertiary which is commentary on the modern commentary if that makes sense.

How you treat and trust sources depends on the type. It also matters how much you want to get into something - for instance you mention translation but this generally only matters on a highly technical level.

So: Primary sources - when you deal with one of these you obviously read it and see what it says. What happened, who did what, why, etc. You might compare it with other primary sources to see where there are points of differences. At this point, a historian's training kicks in - you have to interrogate the source - who wrote it? Why did they write or produce it? What is it for? Nazi or Allied propaganda accounts of the same event in WW2 will be very different, for example - but both will have some historical factual value to them. The job of the modern historian is to try to understand the biases/gaps/holes, problems with primary historical evidence, and then, taking these into account, to produce a plausible secondary commentary on these events - while taking into account the other secondary scholarship.

A serious professional historian of a time/culture/place will be able to read their sources in the original language as well as the secondary scholarship in multiple languages if needed. i

SECONDARY SOURCES

Ok so much of this is going to be the same as before - you read a range of secondary sources on an event or person. They will likely be using the same primary evidence as outlined above - but will vary in which accounts they trust the most. For most casual historians, secondary literature is what you'll read most of - either academic monographs, or more popular facing texts. Once again it's best to read as many of these as you can, and to get a sense of how these sources differ from one another - what the points that historians disagree on, how do they see or interpret their primary sources differently from one another. Then you need to start thinking about who you agree with and why - perhaps one historian is more convincing in their interpretation, perhaps one relies too much on a source that most people think is unreliable.

It's a judgment call. Remember what I said above - once history moves out of the realm of agreed facts - which are usually 'agreed' because all our primary sources say they happened, History is about plausibility as much as it is 'truth'. The fact is that no source is written or produced solely with the truth in mind. Everyone has bias conscious or unconscious, and therefore no truly objective source can exist - and that's fine. Generally the broad narrative - that is the sequence of events - is agreed on and is the basic building block you learn in school. But history is more than 'what happened'. It's also 'how did it happen' and 'why did it happen' and that's where it becomes much more murky. Certainly lots of history is lost. There are many events that are not recorded that would have been very important to lots of peoples' lives. But we can't just recover what's there - we can only work with the evidence that is available to us. But that's part of the fun in doing history.

So to sum up - the best way to know what to trust, and what is 'closest to the facts' is a strong sense of awareness. This is what historians are trained to have in interrogating their data. You need to be aware of what the thing you're reading is - how many layers has it been filtered through from original primary data. You need to understand who, what, why, and most importantly you need to read widley and not just take a single source at face value. By building up a broad knowledge network on a subject you get a sense of what is agreed on and what is debated, where things are secure and where they're not and that helps you to understand the foundations on which historical narrative and interpretation is built on.

I believe the following explains why censorship of historical events isn’t the result of government censorship of Internet resources. The records simply do not exist. References are provided inline for convenience.

It is generally acknowledged that Native American historical records were rare, and come to an abrupt halt after December 1890. The historical record of most native cultures were almost completely eradicated, along with that history. The following explains how that happened.

There were 14 official wars between the US and native Americans following 1830, but those wars did not eradicate most Native American historical records. The final conflict occurred after 1870 when tourists began riding in train cars killing buffalo. This eliminated the food supply Native Americans required in the Great Planes region. Of the millions of buffalo prior to 1870, only about 300 were left by about 1890.

Hunters began killing buffalo by the hundreds of thousands in the winter months. … Send them powder and lead, if you will; but for a lasting peace, let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated.”

Most Native Americans, who did not starve to death, transported themselves onto reservations where the US government offered food after treaties were signed. The children were taken from families and sent to boarding schools, where native languages and oral tradition were harshly punished. Native American history was passed between generations as oral tradition in most tribes. These schools systematically eradicated that history.

A federal report confirmed what Cherokee and other native American families say they have long known — the federal government used boarding schools to “erode the unique cultural identities and languages” of Native American people, the tribe’s chief said Wednesday.

Evidence of the harsh punishment, and the abysmal health and safety conditions at Native American boarding schools, exist in the form of mass grave sites being discovered by archeologists across the United States.

US gov’t: At least 53 burial sites at Indigenous boarding schools — Al Jazeera

Central to the dispute that wiped out Native American history is official suppression of Native religious beliefs. The final official conflict occurred at Wounded Knee in December 1890, when hundreds of Lakota were arrested and eventually killed on 29 December for participating in the Ghost Dance, where Native Americans of one native tribe gathered peacefully to ask native spirits to end the conflict. The Native American historical record abruptly stops after this conflict for a fairly obvious reason.

In the late 1800s, the federal government adopted the Code of Indian Offenses to regulate conduct of Indians on reservations. That Code prohibited the practice of traditional Indian religions and punished those practices by withholding rations, imprisonment, and whipping.

There are few surviving historical records to explain the disappearance of millions of Native Americans from the North American continent as a result of these activities by the US government long before the Internet existed.

The dispute with Native Americans began when President Andrew Jackson ignored that the Supreme Court upheld native treaties. After 1830, Andrew Jackson ordered US military to violate Native American treaties mostly because US citizens wanted land, but the US government did not want to pay for the land.

The Acts: The warrants for Revolutionary War service were issued under acts of July 9, 1788, March 3, 1803, and April 15, 1806. The 1788 act gave free land in the public domain to officers and soldiers who continued to serve during the Revolutionary War or, if they were killed, to their representatives or heirs.

Historical records do exist for five of the dozens of Native American nations as the Dawes Rolls, which was the first census conducted of any Native American nations. The purpose was to grant Native American land to Civil War veterans.

February 8, 2012 marked the 125-year anniversary of the 1887 General Allotment Act (or Dawes Act), legislation that was designed to assimilate American Indian people into white culture and was directly responsible for the loss of 90 million acres of Indian land. The Act required tribally-held land to be divided among individual tribal members and the remaining “surplus” lands opened to white settlement.

Of note is that compensation omitted African American tribe members until 2017, despite emancipation and tribal membership granted in 1865.

Judge Rules That Cherokee Freedmen Have Right To Tribal Citizenship

Prior to the Dawes Rolls, Native American land was taken and placed under the control of the US Bureau of Indian Affairs, which owns and manages land on behalf of most other Native Americans.

The BIA carries out its core mission to serve 574 Federally recognized tribes through four offices. The Office of Indian Services operates the BIA's general assistance, disaster relief, Indian child welfare, tribal government, Indian Self-Determination, and reservation roads programs.

Approximately one tenth of land formerly occupied by Native Americans is managed and leased out by the US Bureau of Land Management. Many tribes were never recognized.

Many Native Americans fled west into Mexico prior to 1850, where many Native Americans already existed. This became US territory in 1848. Despite citizenship, most Native Americans in the Western United States were forcibly transported across the southern border in the 1930s to prepare land for settlement.

A bill called the "Apology Act for the 1930s Mexican Repatriation Program" became official on Jan. 1. Melissa Block talks with the bill's author, state Sen. Joe Dunn, a Democrat from Santa Ana, Calif., about the forced migration to Mexico in the 1930s of U.S. citizens and legal residents.

North America is just one example of how and why historical records are largely missing in many regions where disputes between cultures resulted in the eradication of historical records.

As you are quickly discovering and seemed to be aware of, yes history is biased. I (as a layman) am biased. Simply by my background, by my life experiences, I will have a different perception of things than you. Those writing history texts, both secondary and primary, were biased flawed humans shaped by their background, culture, education, and life experiences. It doesn't need to be about a lie but how people perceive an incident, what a writer considers important and how things should be will differ.

The history you have been taught (your post history suggests from the US, apologies if I'm wrong) will be different from my own. Different national curriculum (unless the US education has a huge love for the Tudor dynasty) and what it chooses to focus on. Even when subjects overlap, that doesn't mean the countries will be even focusing on the exact same bits of that subjects so providing different perceptions for the people as to what mattered and the role of their own nation.

If the history is written by a westerner (while I am a westerner, I should say not all in AH are), it will be from a western point of view however hard they try. Of course, what a western view is varied, there is a range of political views in a country, people come from different social and economic backgrounds in said country, and different countries have different education systems, cultures and histories.

Dealing with that is not to have a cry of despair but to put in the work. Reading as wide a range of sources as possible, to keep learning, knowing about the source (who wrote it, their background and views, why they wrote it and for whom, the social and political situation they wrote in, how reliable they are), learning how to critically analyse. Looks at the links Dan provided and the advice AlarmedCicada256 provided as very useful guides as to how to handle this and history

One of the wonders of history is the human beings, the complex, flawed, not always honest humans. Humans of the past can be what draws people into history, in all their wonderful complexity but those who wrote (and write) the histories were/are also complex beings. Another wonderful thing about history is it evolves, historians build on the shoulders of those that came before, widen the perspectives beyond the traditional, discover new things and explore parts that have been neglected before. History is complex, it is not static with one answer and then we are done with one useful narrative.

History by the victors takes a small nugget (one needs to be aware that victors could and did influence things) and builds into an all-encompassing lie that "sounds right". It is understandable for people to fall into that trap but it is a bad one.

History written by the victors denies all the complexity of life and history. It reduces history to one factor. It reduces the historians to one aspect rather than being complex humans with many motives and pressures, it reduces the complexity of their work and insults their integrity. It denies the voice of those who weren't victors by acting as if none of their work exists, that all their voices are completely gone

It can also be a lazy cop-out from the less well-meaning. Simply saying "history is written by the victors" sounds deep and meaningful, and shows one is aware of bias and too intelligent to fall for such things while pretending to care for the voiceless. It allows them to avoid doing work, instead of diving into the texts and exploring, they can dismiss history and move on while looking good for doing it. If history doesn't back their argument on something, it is also a useful "well history is written by the victors"

For my era alone, the main primary source (records of the three kingdoms) was a private project. From a man (Chen Shou) who served a kingdom that lost (Shu-Han) before serving the kingdom that won (Jin). Compiled and edited from the records of kingdoms (Wei, Wu, Shu-Han) that lost. With a problem that one of them (Shu-Han) under-resourced their record department and did not have a history project (perhaps not helped by what happened to one scholarly project). Combining the three sets of records means there are contradictions that he didn't smooth over and there are gaps (one Wu Prime Minister Sun Shao has no biography due to the politics in Wu involving those in the Wu records department)

Now serving Jin did have an impact, he knew how far he could go and had no wish to end his career or his life, they did try to hide things and spin a narrative (with mixed success). He was also a man of the gentry with the bias of his time and status, a proud Yi native who pushed the intellectual quality he was brought up in over the rival Jing traditions, and a man involved in the politics and cliques at two courts. A man praised for his remarkable neutrality.

History written by the victor ignores such things as resources, political squabbles (or pettiness so bad one ruler put on a play to mock those involved), insultingly dismissing Chen Shou's ability and willingness for relative neutrality, his background and passions. That things get lost over time without deliberate malice. It reduces the complexity of life to a phrase, explaining all in a simple and illogical way

Then there is ignoring that Liu Song scholar Pei Songzhi, after Jin had died, gathered up sources to add as supplementary material including works he argued against in the texts. Adding more contradictions and some ghost tales. The annotations include memorials and writing from those at the time (including from an Emperor the victors killed and tried to hush up), works of losing states, private and state history works including many whose factions did not win, and work from those that came after the three kingdoms. All with different agendas and biases, written for various reasons. Reduced to nothing more than because "history is written by the victor".

That is just the main, messy, source for the era. Let alone works of modern historians. Or the cultural history of the era (like the novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms) that formed after it that has a major impact on the perception of the era. This is one small era of one country, let alone the rest of history across continents and thousands of years.

Now in terms of government control, I do admit Boris Johnson personally intervened a few weeks ago. He did confirm however I could keep Toga's hush funds that were meant for Dan so not all bad.

Let us be honest, I doubt any government from people in this thread is that interested in what some random layperson is saying on a history Reddit. Why would your government, or mine, be interested in a civil war thousands of years ago in a continent far away? If a world government why is history so messy rather than one easy narrative? Why are we able to get books from different authors who don't agree with each other? Why does history contradict and require working way through to find the most plausible way through?

I'm... glad to say there isn't a simple answer with history as much as your friend tries to pretend by conspiracy theory and "history written by the victor". Embrace the messiness and the complexity, be aware of all sorts of bias in the sources and keep learning. Your friend's explanation would deny you the richness of the past by trying to paint it as simple and under some control rather then let you explore and learn.