This is true, modern historical eurocentrism is off the charts, and you can probably reduce it to whig history/ post enlightment "mission civilisatrice" type of stuff.
Fundamentally - despite all its screeching for diversity and inclusion - the modern western liberal is so smug in its own superiority that they do not even consider non-liberal (non-white) points of view as valid. (The postcolonialist school is an adoption of western whig thought/liberalism by non-whites and thus it takes a special places as it confirms the smug superiority of the AWFL).
Although specialized fields in historiography ignore that stuff. f.e. Late Antiquity as a periodisation for the early caliphate is the general consensus. If you look into the history of catholicism then the term ultramontanism will spring out in the 19th century. Translatio imperii has been studied as used by Charles V of Spain in his role as king of the aztecs and inheritor of montezuma's mantle.
The world has always been far more interconnected than people think, and western europe has been a backwater for most of earths history.
Japan's desire of a colonial empire was more of an attempt to imitate the western powers in a desperate attempt at not getting colonized themselves.
Imitation industries are still rather difficult, you need competent artisans/workmanship to copy stuff.
For example, this is 18th century southern indian ironworks:
View attachment 4699926
This was the european equivalent in that period.
View attachment 4699934
Do you really think the Mysoreans will be building steam engines with purely manual labor?
In "the Anarchy" by William Dalrymple (edit: good book, worth the read), it is noted how an Indian aide to the french commander of the Indies recognizes that the french need less than a few thousand men and twenty pieces of artillery to conquer the subcontinent. Such is the difference in organisation, military tech and discipline.
People underestimate how hard it is to copy stuff, how difficult it is to close the gap. China started their attempt in the late 19th century and they've barely reached par with the west.
The so called great divergence (in technology but also in other stuff like politics) is so incredibly massive that it can be barely comprehended. It also started far earlier than commonly thought. Active use of machinery (although mainly wood and leather stuff) can be traced to the 16th century in W. Europe.
Earlier in my post I've ragged on "whig history" but it is kind of understandable in a sense. The west just skullfucks the rest of the world tech-wise.
