Problem 1: What incentives, purposes, and/or agendas drive Hannah-Jones' approach to U.S. History? What about President Trump's approach?
Problem 2: Which perspective is more convincing? Why?
Problem 3: How might historians synthesize or make sense of conflicting perspectives?
Problem 4: How do we acknowledge biases? How do we avoid brushing some perspectives under the rug or writing them off as false or misleading? In other words, what can bias tell us? What value does bias offer the historian? (Hint: bias is incredibly valuable!)