Challenging dominant narratives that exist about historical events is an admirable task. It takes courage to fight the morality and power that are given to individuals who are glorified within those narratives. Barrie Collins has attempted to challenge the dominant narrative about the Rwandan genocide. He considers his primary task to be challenging the myth that a group of Hutu Power elites, known as the Akazu, planned and implemented the genocide. While doing so, he criticises those who repeat the dominant narrative for wrongly assuming the genocide to be ‘a crime of obedience’ conducted by a ‘powerful, centralised state’ (p. 8). There are many powerful claims made in this book, which takes aim at the moral legitimacy derived by Paul Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) for their role in bringing an end to the violence in 1994. However, Collins uses sources selectively and fails to critically address the wide range of evidence that has been brought forward by two decades of research on the genocide. Only 22 interviews are listed in the bibliography of the book – mostly with individuals who have reasons to attack the RPF's moral legitimacy. Though he uses other sources, such a small number of interviews is insufficient to substantiate the claims that Collins has made.

Collins has developed an interesting and detailed counter-narrative of events that may have occurred preceding the genocide. Many of the claims that he makes during the course of his narrative remain contested among scholars studying Rwanda. For example, he is convinced that the RPF shot down the plane carrying Juvenal Habyarimana – an allegation that has been popular among critics of the Rwandan government for several years. However, barely any of the evidence he uses is original and it does little to sway the views of anyone who is familiar with the academic literature. Collins has also selectively used the work of certain researchers who work in line with his reasoning, without acknowledging the wider literature. For instance, he claims that of the Rwandans killed during the genocide, a majority may have been Hutu and may have been killed by the RPF. His claim is based on (what he calls) the ‘instructive’ work of Christian Davenport and Allan Stam, who used spatial mapping software to estimate how many Tutsis may have been living in Rwanda in 1994. In reality, Davenport and Stam's research has come in for criticism from various scholars and it is far from ‘instructive’ in terms of explaining what happened during the genocide. He also makes interesting claims about the scale of Ugandan and American involvement, which could have been supported with more evidence.

The most convincing arguments developed within this book are the criticisms Collins levies at those who characterise Rwandan genocidaires as obeying the orders of a group of Hutu Power elites. Omar McDoom's recent work has added to existing work that shows that most people killed because they wanted to kill. However, in playing down the role of Hutu elites in organising violence, Collins has failed to recognise that many of the ‘Akazu’ and its supporters were able to legitimise such violence or even reward those who were violent.

Collins has made no attempt at hiding his biases. He attempts to recast the RPF as the ‘bad’ guy, while even implying that leading figures in the Rwandan government in the 1990s have been harshly treated. He also unfairly criticises the choices and testimonies of Alison Des Forges, a leading scholar who studied the Rwandan genocide. The activist tone in which this book has been written mirrors the choice of sources used. Though he may not have intended this, such choices imply that a preconceived argument has driven this research. Though there is much research that is impressive and some interesting empirical details, the logical details are not always well connected. Collins' bias is evident both in the sources he uses and in the tone of his writing. This makes it difficult for many of the claims to be convincing.

This book has been published two decades after the genocide. Its publication has also occurred at a time when many other critics of the current Rwandan government have chosen to voice their arguments that the RPF may have shot down Habyarimana's plane – an event which directly preceded the genocide. Like other critics, this book brings little new information forward (which is not free of bias). Though the counter-narrative that is developed is impressive, Collins would have been better served if he had developed a wider range of sources and conducted more interviews.

It is important that dominant narratives are critically assessed. In the case of Rwanda, this remains important as certain actors may receive moral legitimacy because of their place within these narratives. Any new attempts at revising the narrative must recognise the diverse range of sources and evidence available to us. Interviewing and acknowledging the voices within the dominant narrative is also equally important.