Eurocentrism is known as belief in the idea that Western civilization, particularly Europe, is the pinnacle of sophistication. It frames the west as the predominant engineer of history, the philosophical and idealistic juggernaut, and the prime example of progressivism and societal evolution. Eurocentrism is a catalyst of expansionism and imperialism. Conversely, the idea known as ethnocentrism means to use one’s own culture or ethnicity as criterion to arbitrate foreign cultures, practices, behaviors, beliefs, and peoples. While they are usually taken separately, one would suppose that an ethnocentrist from Europe is a de facto Eurocentrist. I would suppose that the difference lies in both means and intention; if one has the means and intention to conquer, any ethnocentrist could be a proponent of imperialism.  While Solomon Islands does not not, in this day and age, suffer from past ethnocentrisms, one could make the argument that the small Pacific nation would not be the way it is without ethnocentrism. As I stated earlier, ethnocentrism from a European could validly be considered Eurocentrism. The Solomon Islands were colonized by Britain, and its borders decided upon by Britain along with France and Germany. One could reasonably argue that it is due to the ethnocentrism of the Europeans, which is, again, Eurocentrism, that the Solomon Islands exist in the way that they presently do.