-No disagreement from me. I'm just rejecting the extreme (i.e. -Blaut/Proyect) position.
I think your moderate position begs the fundamental question, which is whether that exploitation of the periphery was a "but for" cause of the rise of Europe into economic supremacy. Did that additional surplus value just add additional fuel to an industrial revolution already burning, or was it a fundamental cause of its ignition?
Robert Fogel has argued that core innovations in division of labor and capital work organization were first pioneered in the West Indies. The capital from the sugar colonies were critical financers of the factories that helped break city guilds and speed the replacement of craft production with factory production.
The question is whether all of that would have happened anyways, just slower without exploiting non-European peoples. I'm not sure of the answer but I do think it's more than just a "on the one hand, but on the other" question that can be blurred.
Nathan Newman