IMPORTANT NOTES, PLEASE READ BEFORE ANSWERING!
First of all, a disclaimer since considering the question, it's obviously needed : know that I am well aware of what this question possibly implies (notably soapboxing) but I want to nuance these implications and also clarify that I do not want to offend anyone: I am not here to say that professional historians / academics do bad work or intentionally inserts their bias to promote a narrative, the interests of a community or theirs.
I'm also well aware that as an amateur, I shouldn't technically be doing this kind of post that ultimately judges circles when I'm not in a position to do so, but that doesn't mean I'm doing it out of contempt.
This post as its origins from a simple feeling after having read works on related topics, yes I have the impression that there is a double standard (whether real or not) concerning European history and its external interactions &/or comparisons (whether, obviously, at the advantage of Europeans, but also at their disadvantage, which in both ways can be prejudicial), as I said however, I don't think it's on purpose, but rather, due to involuntary biases, consequence of multiple factors more or less rooted in our past.
From the cultural relativity/cultural universality dichotomy, to the emotional impact our past can have on us (guilt, grudge, etc...) passing in the process around narratives & concepts possibly fallacious but that are acknowledged as norms; I think this problematic web provokes a vicious circle which is not always easy to identify and which, in this fascinating but enormous melting pot that is the treatment of global history, has still today an effect possibly much more important than one could think.
This is why, although I, as a European myself, know I'm very badly placed to ask, still take the risk, because I want the topic to be at least discussed, even if it's to dismiss the premise. Also, while the question might be more relevant for its sociological aspect, it does concern historians, so asking it on this sub has its importance.
So basically, this is not an arrogant question to prove my superiority (what you can be sure of, is that it's not the point I want to make), but one out of curiosity & confusion due to possibly my beliefs (& biases of course) but that I still consider legit, not because I'm superior but because I nonetheless consider that all humans are not infallible & that all opinions can be reviewed as long as it's in mutual respect (or at least, attempted to be).
Now, if this text still don't prove my sincerity for you, it's fine, but at least explain with the rules of the sub in mind & don't try to sanction me for this post, as clumsy can it be...
Thanks in advance for answering.
(Yes, I've read all the rules & this post is allowed)
A very valid question. Biases are indeed very much a thing in most humanities, especially in history. Is this inherently good or bad? I don't think it's either, it just is. History as a subject of study is a peculiar thing, because its object doesn't exist. When we study the past, we cannot see it, touch it, feel it. We call this the blurriness of the object: the fact that we can only perceive the past from interacting with remnants, relics, historical artefacts that date from the period we're studying, but that are immersed in our specific temporal context. The process by which we interact, analyse and critically observe these pieces of historical evidences is filled with both hermeneutical and heuristical techniques through which we establish symbolic "limits" to the aforementioned blurry reality of the past; this is what the historical method consists of in a nutshell.
In The Faces of Clio, Spanish historian Enrique Moradiellos gives a magnificent overview of the way in which the historical discipline and memory constantly interact with each other. He specialises in recent Spanish history, but his books on historiography are exceptional resources for all of us Spanish speakers who are trained as historians. He explains that sciences, STEMs and humanities alike, don't outright produce absolute truths, but rather, they set out with what he calls the "pretension of objectivity", which constitutes the notion that humans are incapable of being absolutely objective, but they can try to be as impartial as possible. However, he recognises that cultural biases are impossible to detach ourselves from, hence the pretension, we can try, but the end result of our scientific endeavours as historians will still never be an absolutely objective truth.
I'm a native descendant Latine historian. I study a few different things, chiefly two main areas: the romantic era period in European classical music composition, and the relationships between Latin American classical music and Latin American folk music on one hand, and on the other hand the relations between the early Argentinian State and the native populations living in the Patagonian territories that are now the southern region of Argentina. Do my areas of study conflict? Possibly, but by the logic of a prevalent "for" or "against" prejudices and biases concerning Europe, I shouldn't be studying the romantic era in Europe, right? Yet I do. I do it because I adore classical music, and because George Enescu was a thing of beauty, in every sense of the word, wink wink.
Coming back to your precise question, I can safely say that eurocentrism is very much still a thing, and I'm not a fan for obvious reasons. I've spoken about it previously here. I would note however that an Eurocentric historiographical perspective isn't simply a bias for, it's also a bias against. Against every civilization conquered by European colonialism and imperialism. Eurocentrism continues to be rooted, even today, in positivist ideals of social darwinism and other very unsavoury schools of thought. On the other hand, I can only speak for the subaltern historiographical methodologies that come from Latin América: our views regarding Europe aren't based on an inherent disdain for Europeans and European nations per se, but for the ideas they followed and defended when justifying the atrocities committed in the conquest of the continent. The defense of mine or other native peoples that I and many others make doesn't come from a "noble savage" belief, we recognise and acknowledge the many mistakes and crimes that natives committed, case in point, I've mentioned this before, but my ancestors, the Aonikenk and Gününa Küne were in fact conquered and enslaved by the Mapuches before the Spanish started conquering them. But recognising those aspects of our continental history in no way shape or form justifies negating or downplaying the atrocities committed by, say, the Spanish conquistadores.
All this goes to say what me and most historians I've come across think: recognising that, as humans whose subjectivities are socially and culturally constructed, we are fundamentally biased, can help us critically analyse said biases, understanding that absolute objective truth is impossible to attain in the historical discipline. History is a science constructed from narrative. Of course, that should never mean that the historical method should be ignored, that only leads to pseudo-history, counterfactual exercises, negative revisionism and other similar useless and even dangerous tendencies; what it means is that biases, cultural or otherwise, have the potency and potential to help us reconstruct collective memories in a helpful and meaningful way. We shouldn't disdain biases, we should instead recognise them, value them for what they are, and critically approach them.
I think that /u/aquatermain said what I had been typing far more elegantly than I did, but one major thing I would want to stress is that the entire notion of objectivity or being "unbiased" is a fairly Eurocentric concept in itself, and one that's tied up in notions of one type of person being normative. That is, the (implied white, male, European) researcher can be "unbiased" in his judgment of other people because he is the embodiment of the perfect neutral; someone from another culture is "biased" because of their own cultural background, race, etc.
A couple of posts from /u/snapshot52 that might interest you are below -- Snap is writing from an Indigenous perspective about how Native cultures understand sources and teach and learn history, and it's in many ways the opposite of notions of being "unbiased" or "objective." I'd encourage you to give them a read:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6o2oih/monday_methods_understanding_contemporary/