Eastern Bloc is perfectly OK - in fact I more wince at Communist Bloc (not only because it was a fraud but because it was socialist officially).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

Uganda never had a revolution per se.  A military coup does not a revolutin make.

A lot of killing also does not make a revolution.

I assume that by referring to Sudan, you didn't mean the Islamic revolution of 1989....  Sudan has had several of what would generally be considered civil wars, in which the sides have been divided by ethnicity, livlihood, religion and a host of other factors.  I suppose that if one of them were to have been successful, and spawned a new country hewn out of the old Sudan, then it might have been considered a popular revolution, but they have not succeeded and thus are still considered civil wars.  (Much like the American one, I might add.)

In that vein, I suppose Eritrea could be considered to have had a revolution prior to 1993.  Eritreans consider it a war for independence.

The people of South Africa generally do not think of their transition to democracy as a revolution, and I would add that the "struggle" (which is the word they use to describe the work of anti-apartheid forces both peaceful and otherwise) began long before 1990.  Yes, a lot of people died in political violence between 1990 and 1994 (and, in fact,  in 1995, and 1999) but that does not necessarily equate to a civil war, nor a revolution.  For as radical a transformation as that society experienced, what is remarkable about the level of bloodshed is not how great it was, but how small.

A friend of mine who's in her mid-30s now and went to school in Swaziland with some of the young lions of the ANC, and the children of the old lions, said it something like this:  "Thank God that Mandela and Sisulu and that generation were in charge.  Because I love my friends, but if they had been running the show, there would have been blood in the streets."

It's true that the loss of Saint-Domingue, as the French called their colony, was a huge blow to their interests in the "New World". But in fact French chances of dominating the North American continent had been scotched almost a half-century earlier by defeat in the Seven Years' War (known in America as the French and Indian War). Hopes of meaningfully linking and settling French territory from the Gulf to Canada were put an end to then, by the British victory in Quebec and the fall of strategic forts like Frontenac and Duquesne. US settlers were moving into the gap before the end of the century: the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio were admitted to the Union in 1792, 1796, and 1803 respectively.

All of which takes nothing away, imho, from your point that Haiti has been a scandalously neglected and mistreated country since it became the first independent black republic in history.