There are always going to be competing narratives about these sorts of conflagrations, but I think responsible intelletuals rather than simply dismissing one narrative as 'holocaust denial' etc., will offer a substantive critique of the other narrative - no? Otherwise its back to kindergarden - of course you can, as you have take refuge in the idea that the very conception of a competing narrative is 'beyond the pale' and insulate yourself from the obligation to explain your position. This works well in some contexts, but not so well in others. From my experience it generally does not work on this list - on most issues anyway. So, do you have a critique of the material I presented?
[WS:] First, I owe you an apology for making unwarranted assumption about your background (I guess I must have confused you with someone else). You are absolutely right that the background of the speaker does not affect the merits or demerits of his argument - even if it may help explaining its slant or drift (more about that in a moment).
The point I tried to make had little to do with politics and economic of sub-Saharan Africa, therefore I did not even consider the situation in the Congo (as you notice). My point was to apply the same standards we use for, say, Europe to the discussion of other countries or continents. If someone claims that, say, Jews were not innocent victims of the Holocaust, but somehow "contributed" to it by being shameless money grubbers exploiting poor people (a claim actually made, even by the left), and thus "the other side" must also be taken into account - that would undoubtedly be considered "Holocaust denial" and practically banned from the public discourse. My point is that what is good for the goose should be good for the gander, and we should apply the same standards to the discussion of the "Holocaust" of non-European peoples. If we do not question the horrors of the European Holocaust (and rightfully so), we should not be questioning the horrors of the African one either.
As to the rest of your posting, two observations. In explaining historical events, I almost always prefer those that look for domestic or internal causes, rather than external ones. If the external causes have any effect, they do so almost exclusively through the internal ones. Just to use a neutral example, the collapse of the x-USSR is due not to the hostility of the West (although such hostility did exist), but to the internal properties and weaknesses of that system. If external influences had any effect, that effect was exercised almost exclusively through domestic actors who chose to align themselves with foreign interests. Even in case of a straightforward foreign invasion, the success of that invasion and subsequent foreign influence is due for the most part to the internal weakness, policy miscalculations, inability for form defensive alliances etc. of the invaded country. In short, when a lion kills and eats Bambi, it happens not because the lion is mean and bad, but because Bambi cannot run fast enough or otherwise defend itself.
Second, it is my impression from various conferences and meetings that blaming foreign influences for every domestic problem is a popular trope among African intellectuals. Of course, it is not limited to Africa - in Eastern Europe (where I am from) it was a big theme, and to my knowledge it is also quite popular in Latin America.
I do not think it is personal, as I have never observed any hostility toward the "Northerners" in my professional contacts with Africans (au contraire, they are probably one of the friendliest people I've met), just an unquestioned acceptance of a cultural trope. To illustrate, several years ago I attended a conference in Nairobi whose theme was to define the research agenda on the continent. The prevailing tenor of the speakers was "breaking the Northern research paradigm." Since what I had to present was pretty standard economic data on African nonprofits, pretty much within the "Northern" paradigm, I expected if not being bombarded with rotten eggs and tomatoes, then at least dismissed altogether. In reality, the opposite happened - the audience was extremely interested. Part of it was that nobody else did this kind of research in Africa before, but the bigger part I suppose was that people could finally say something substantive instead of proposing what needs to be done.
With that in mind, I really do not buy the tropes blaming foreign influences, but instead I look for domestic causes. To my knowledge (and I am not an expert here, just reporting conclusions reached by other researchers) one of the main causes of tensions in Rwanda was the land ownership pattern that left many farmers nearly or totally landless, unable to support themselves from farming, and often indebted to their better off neighbors, and a hodge podge of small scale farms with rather low productivity. As I understand Rwanda has the highest population density in Africa (or close to it) - so this was an important issue. I also understand that this is a better explanation of the genocide than mere "ethnic tensions," let alone "Northern meddling," because it also explains the Hutu-on-Hutu violence, which was a non-trivial part of the genocide.
I am well aware of the fact that blame games, especially blaming foreign influences, are an integral part of political discourse in most countries, and that this trope often gains significant popularity among the masses. I have to admit that I am quite negatively predisposed to these practices because, among other things, I view it as the abrogation of a difficult intellectual task of analytic separation of multiple causes in complex events in favor of simplistic demonization and scapegoating.
I hope that this explains my position on the subject. I may also add that I do not disagree with your claim that the "Western" or "Northern" media often turn foreign coverage into "morality plays" by selective reporting and suggestive narratives. In fact, I find it quite annoying. However, I also think that these biased reporting practices do not have much effect on anything beyond irking the sensibilities of a few intellectuals. It is just talk.
Wojtek