"As for Africa, the Americas and Oceania it's the geographical equivalent of Luck of the Draw- if your civilisation develops in a region of low population density with a lack of cultural interaction and an abundance of resources you'd have no incentive to grow as much as a civilisation constantly being invaded by different people all vying for the same limited farmland/resource; it's geographical, not racial, differences that has caused Europe and then later America to become so advanced."
I understand your intention is good but I'd have to disagree. There are civilizations in Africa, the Americas and Oceania that were as advanced and powerful as ones in Eurasia prior to the 18th century. The Mali Empire, Nubia, Axum, Egypt, Abyssinia, the Kanem-Bornu Empire, the Kingdom of Sinnar, the Ashanti Empire, the Oyo Empire, Great Zimbabwe, the Swahili city-states, etc. in Africa were as powerful and advanced as contemporary ones in Eurasia. Egypt, Nubia and Axum, the Swahili city-state kingdoms and Great Zimbabwe were all praised by outsider civilizations like the Arabs, the Berbers, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Indians and the Chinese. All of whom traded with them. Many resisted Arab and European attempts at conquest and colonization for centuries. Some eventually fell to Arab and European conquest when they fell on hard times and some were eventually overpowered by industrialized European armies later on.
Then in the Americas you had the Aztec Empire, the Incan Empire, the Mayan civilization, etc. which were as powerful and advanced as civilizations in contemporary Europe, Asia and the Middle East. By the time outsiders arrived they had fallen on hard times though.
I could go on.