The previous post was fairly accurate.  It's the "lies" word that is going to be a challenge in the statement.  It might be right and completely valid, but proving it is going to require substantiation that will prove without a doubt that events such as exploration and colonial settlement were consciously designed to increase indigenous people's suffering, drive profits through the ceiling, and that this conspiracy was deliberate.  Finding evidence to prove this is going to be a challenge.  I think that the statement is fairly accurate.  I would also say that while the wording might be a challenge, the idea of history meaning one thing to one individual or set of people and meaning another to an alternate group or individual is quite valid.  The aspect of colonial settlement meant one set of truths to the parent nation.  Increased political influence, wealth, and substantiation of nationalism might be one set of realities that were experienced.  This was a historical reality.  On the other side, the idea of oppression and being forced into violations of political, civil, and/ or economic rights were another set of realities experienced by those who were colonized.  In this light, one can see the basic idea of the statement in that history means different realities to different individuals.

I've heard this quote before, and I suppose to some extent it's true.  "Lies" is such a strong word; however, every story (and that's what history is, a collection of stories) has more than one perspective. 

You may have read the poem in which six blind men are each touching an elephant, trying to figure out what, exactly the creature is.  One touches its side and says it's like a wall; one touches the tusk and says it's like a spear; the next touches the trunk and believes it's like a snake...and the list goes on (I've included the link below, in case you're interested).  My point is that we all see things a little differently based on our perspectives, our biases, our experiences, and whatever else has shaped us into the beings we are. 

So, when we're looking back at...let's say...a war, people will of course have different views as to who started it and why.  Only from the vantage point of time can there be any kind of merging of the views into what passes for truth--and history.

Think specifically of something like the famous "shot heard 'round the world."  There are all kinds of opinions about who shot and why.  Or what, exactly, caused the Civil War?  Once "history" settles on answers to questions like these, it may or may not be the truth, but it's the "lie" we've settled on. 

This same concept applies to whichever period in history you happen to be studying. Hope this helps get you started!