Not exactly. The Bantu invasions (very roughly somewhat after the time of Christ), largely but not entirely displacing the ancient Khoisan-speaking peoples (who are NOT black), moved southern Africa from the Stone Age into the Iron Age. In the latter medieval period, some Bantus were even flirting with civilization (e.g. the city-states on the coast, the Great Zimbabwe, and the Kongo Kingdom).
European colonization occurred mostly in South Africa and barely at all in the equatorial and interior portions of the Continent. The difference between mere conquest and colonization involves the movement of large numbers of people into colonies.
In the area now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Belgians had no civilizing effect whatsoever, but merely taught, spread, encouraged, and instigated barbarous civil wars. The result: about the same as those anti-capitalist anarchists desire for America, insofar as I can tell.
Even today, South Africa is a fairly prosperous, semi-capitalist free country, as are Namibia and Botswana. All three are racked by tremendous challenges: human immunodeficiency virus, a lax attitude toward sexual promiscuity and sex crimes, crime (especially in South Africa). But that doesn't mean that they won't succeed permanently. Right now, I'm still optimistic on these three.
In equatorial Africa, Benin has been a stable, free country for some time, as are Ghana, Mali, and Senegal, but all have struggling, socialist economies. Several fairly large kingdoms existed in this part of the world during the medieval period. I'm somewhat less optimistic on this region, but if they can shed socialism and adopt agricultural practices geared toward soil conservation, these countries probably will prosper when the multi-decadal oscillation in precipitation in the Sahel swings toward "wet." (William Gray believes this swing has occurred, but that these countries are too dependent on drought-related foreign aid to tell the world.) There's also some problems with sectarian (Muslim/Christian) violence in these parts that could inhibit the development of prosperous civilization.
As for the rest of the countries on the African Continent (except Spain), I don't see much in the way of true civilization any time soon (at least a decade, probably the better part of a century for most).
P.S. Zimbabwe is a Communist dictatorship. As such, its prospectus is the same as the Soviet Union: death and dissipation.
I cannot think of who wrote it, but what he said is that failure on the part of post colonial Africa would probably benefit it in the long run. These phony countries set up by the Europeans are not conducive to good government, smaller is better. But I don't hold much hope for Africa because in the developed worlds quest for raw materials Africa will again be the battleground between powers and the cycle begins anew.
Your # 19 has it about right insofar as the Belgiums are concerned.
But you missed the contributions of the execrable french and the obscene irresponsibility -- in Africa and everywhere else they ever set foot -- of every other dead and decadent bloody Euro-peon colonialist.
And that the bloody british cut and run from their every outpost of empire -- and responsibility.
But the rest of your post is pure BS!
The word "savage" didn't back its way into the English Language -- and the feller who ascribed the stone age to Africa's was being very very generous indeed.