The discourse of international relations has garnered criticism and speculation among intellectuals who do not subscribe to a positivist interpretation of history. One statement in response to IR is a call for greater attention to postcolonial thought and its applicable methods to illuminate social and cultural implications as avenues for understanding a more holistic analysis. They believe that the study of IR knowingly includes distorted interpretations of events without taking into account historical or identity factors such as race, gender and violence, and furthermore attribute to the discipline an intrinsically hegemonic character in its essence and furthermore imperialist. This amnesiac tendency can best be understood through the notion of abstraction, a term in IR that is “based on the desire to escape history, to erase the violence, genocide and theft that marked the encounter between 'the rest' and the 'West in the post-Columbian era'. This can be seen, for example, in the Western narrative of decolonizing Africa. Where in the 20th century there is an effort to reshape the image of Europeans as a force for modernity and democracy, while at the same time covertly attempting to liquidate and “reimagine an Africa stripped of its imperial past”. IR promotes an emphasis on a state of nature that highlights certain facts and at the same time does not reveal others. While this is not academically wrong, there is the potential for fabrication. Subsequently, this leads to a positivist narrative that attempts to distort perceptions of events that do not include important factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, class, and so on. These unaccounted for variables allow for the absence of any counterargument from those who have been victims of IR. Without the space for introspective conversation, IR often lacks a multidimensional analysis that could be aided by incorporating other social science disciplines, particularly postcolonial thought. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Additionally, IR tends to dismiss further scholarly exploration, taking a position that “excessive focus on such elements is best suited for intellectual arenas and has no place in IR.” According to Gruffydd Jones's view on the “decolonization of international relations”: IR does not recognize “three processes that historically underlie the unequal global order we find ourselves in today: land theft, violence and slavery.” Despite the promotion of IR as a study focused on the analysis of peacekeeping, sovereignty and laws, there is little attention to identity. More specifically, there appears to be what Gruffydd Jones calls a “political unconscious” when it comes to race and how it is rarely emphasized as a contextual component in the explanation of many world affairs. IR's lack of recognition of race is evidence that IR is not just a "white" discipline derived from a post-World War II effort to rename many former colonizers, but a construction that focuses on maintaining a amnesia of race relations so as to further favor the race. promote the concept of “them and us”. Through an analysis of how power-holding authorities influence IR and an analysis of Said's orientalist claim that IR is another form of imperialist history, this essay will examine the extent to which l 'amnesia had within the IR in conjunction with the race..