Those are just two examples...and I am really not discussing the Dutch here.
Look at the numerous Caribbean countries that were essentially British Slave plantations that are now doing very well.
On top of that India and Ghana are also both leaps and bounds ahead Zimbabwe in no small part due to Ghandhi/Nehru and Nkrumah. Botswana and Namibia are also doing better then their neighbor.
Though I do see what you are saying. You believe circumstances and consequences > human agency. I believe human agency makes for favorable circumstances and consequences. Thus why, in large part, countries in the same geographic area with somewhat similar circumstances at decolonization like Malaysia and Burma and Ghana and Sierra Leone have had such different outcomes.
I see what you're saying as well, and agree to some extent. However, you honestly can't think that Haiti (pre-earthquake), Martinique, Aruba, and Jamaica are "doing very well", can you? Have you looked at the GDP numbers for the Caribbean nations? And even if it is favorable, how much of that benefits the sons and daughters of the oppressed? My issue with what you posted earlier is that you don't account for after-effects of colonialism.
One I am not discussing the French. Their form of colonialism was/is a different beast entirely, but even there Human agency holds up as Senegal and Benin are much better off then Niger or Ivory Coast.
As to the Caribbean I have looked at GDP and HDI and have to say The Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Trinidad, and Barbados among others are doing quite well all cases of government policy and human agency. Additionally, in all of these countries the sons and daughters of former slaves and indentured servants make up the vast, vast majority of the population have control at all levels of government and, in general, are the ones reaping the benefits.