Right you are. But he'd be the first to admit that in countering colonial lies with the beginnings of an African nationalist historiography, he bent the stick too far the other way on occasion, for example promoting during the 1960s a mythologised role for the Shona spirit-medium Nehanda, who catalysed the mid-1890s revolts against Cecil Rhodes' invasion of what is now Zimbabwe. In turn that referential point was central (he was told by ex-guerrillas) to the establishment, during the 1970s, of an African nationalism that has had some pretty ugly manifestations. Ranger also celebrated during the 1980s some of the characteristics of that 1970s liberation struggle which, when under the spotlight of more recent work, were revealed as highly coercive (e.g. in Norma Kriger's revisionism). Ranger seemed, by the 1990s, to recognise these "errors." He then turned to a social history analysis of a famous Zimbabwe clan. All along his work has been characterised by great eloquence and turns of phrase, and strong moral critique. Not much if any attention to poli-econ theorising though, and -- though I wouldn't pretend to have credentials sufficient to criticise Ranger -- I think that may be responsible for some of the regrettable turns he took.
After retiring from Oxford he moved to Harare where he has been in residence with an excellent university think-tank.
P.