You're pretty much in a way right. But people say that the Nordic model had done pretty well.
Consider their geographical and demographic advantages.
They have small, homogeneous countries where people get along extremely well. They have lots of natural resources, low population densities (which translates into lower costs and reduced stress as a result of bigger houses and more space) they weren't hit hard by war (either because they folded straight away or they were too cowardly to fight at all) and none of their neighbours hate them. Can you really say that they've done well because of their political system? Scandinavian countries would be successful no matter what system you had. Being the Prime Minister of Denmark, Norway or Sweden must be the easiest job in the world.
Of course, all of this might change soon. Anders Breivik and the things he said in his manifesto show that something is rotten in the state of Norway (and probably the other two).
For Africans, it was they're worse Century.
Wasn't every century their worst century?
Hell, I'd say that the worst thing to happen to Africa (at least the parts north of the Equator) was when the Arabs decided to pillage and plunder down there. For some reason, many militant African Americans identify with Islam, but the Arabs fucked over Africa a long time before the Europeans did. I wouldn't be surprised if Arabs or Turks were the ones selling most black Africans to the European colonists back in the day. But that part of history isn't my strong point. In British schools, teaching about the slave trade all revolves around the belief that white people randomly went to Africa, invaded and took slaves from whatever villages they found. It creates the impression that all the slave owners and traders were evil honkies and that slavery was an exclusively Western institution.
But it's late, and I'm going to bed.