It's only in the past year or so that I've become interested in decolonial theory, and even then my area of focus is on Black and Indigenous (lack of) voices, both in real life and in media. Asian representation in Western media is something I've only recently been seriously thinking on.
Off topic, but this strikes me as an interesting thing. The study of history is normally the study of writing, and the written histories that have come out from various sources. Primary sources are normally the best. In the past (and some would say, it was from a source of them being in power) much of history that was influential on our study of history came from those in power in colonial eras. Thus, a majority of our history presented in the 20th century came from French, Spanish (European), Dutch, and English historians.
In English speaking nations, it came strongly from English historians, though later starting in the latter part of he 19th century, United States Historians start to have more influence on English speaking people's interpretation of history.
As it is based on the writings of those historians, most of them would read and write their native language. In regards to history written in English, many were versed in English, French, Greek, and Latin. Some focused on Old English and Germanic languages. Most did not understand languages from Tribes in North America (or Africa either, though there were actually empires and mighty Kingdoms established in Africa as well that do not really have their histories known for many of the modern histories studied today), or languages outside of the European sphere, and those that did were not historians generally.
I wonder now, after reading your comment, if that is one reason why the history many learn in school of past cultures is more from the bias of the European and colonial experience. They literally did not use other sources outside that of colonial and European writings for their primary sources for the most part.
You probably would know more on that idea or topic.
