Which best describes consensus historiography? . a. a bottom-up look at historical events to rethink the traditional perspective . b. a re-interpretation of facts based on new evidence and resulting in new conclusions. c. a revisionist interpretation of events in which all viewpoints are considered. d. a top-down look at historical events to rethink the traditional perspective. e. a view of history in which the traditional interpretation is upheld

The correct answer is E, that, a view of history in which the traditional interpretation is upheld best describes the Consensus historiography.

This style of historiography manages the essential part of American Values, and downplays friction as short-sighted and lacking in complexity. The Historiography was used in reference by the U.S School of History and the movement was influential in the 1950s and 1960s. The Consensus Historiography challenged the Progressive and Marxist beliefs stated the U.S had little tension in their belief system. They said there was a lack of internal conflict in the United States. This branch of historiography rejected the Progressive historiography that had previously dominated and stressed the primary importance of class conflict in American History. Richard Hofstadter, Louise Hartz, Daniel J. Boorstin and David M. Potter were some of the prominent leaders of this branch of Historiography.

a view of history in which the traditional interpretation is upheld

Hope this helps!!

the right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "their policy of "divide and rule" pitted political groups against each other to keep any one group from becoming too powerful.  " the  participant in european imperialism is being described below is that  their policy of "divide and rule" pitted political groups against each other to keep any one group from becoming too powerful. 

this is a good question! i'll do some research and come back when i have the answer!