The discourse on international relations has sparked criticism and speculation among intellectuals who do not adhere to a positivist interpretation of history. A statement in response to IR is an increased call for attention to postcolonial thought and its applicable methods to illuminate social and cultural implications as avenues for understanding a more holistic analysis. They consider that the study of IR consciously maintains biased interpretations of events without taking into consideration historical or identity factors such as race, gender and violence, and further attribute to the discipline an inherently hegemonic and, moreover, , imperialist. This amnesiac tendency can be better understood through the notion of abstraction, a term in IR which "rests on the desire to escape history, to erase the violence, the genocide and the theft which marked the encounter between “the rest” and the West in 2007. the post-Columbian era”. This is seen for example in the Western discourse aimed at decolonizing Africa. In the 20th century, there was an effort to reshape the image of Europeans as a force for modernity and democracy, while secretly trying to reject and “reimagine an Africa stripped of its imperial past.” IR emphasizes a state of nature that highlights certain facts while obscuring others. While this is not academically wrong, there is manufacturing potential. 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, social class, etc. These variables not taken into account allow the absence of any counter-argument from those who have been victims of IR. Lacking space for introspective conversation, IR often lacks the multidimensional analysis that could be facilitated if it incorporated other social science disciplines, particularly postcolonial thought. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay. Additionally, IR tends to reject further academic exploration, believing that "excessive focus on such elements is more suited to intellectual fields and has no place in IR." According to Gruffydd Jones on "decolonizing international relations": IR fails to recognize "three processes that have historically underpinned the unequal world 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, identity receives little attention. More specifically, there appears to be what Gruffydd Jones calls a "political unconscious" when it comes to race and the fact that it is rarely emphasized as a contextual element in explaining many world affairs. IR's lack of recognition of race is evidence that IR is not just a "white" discipline arising from a post-war effort to rename many former colonizers, but a construct that focuses on maintaining race relations amnesia in order to promote the development of race relations. promote notions of “them and us”. Through an analysis of how the ruling 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 amnesia has affected within IR in conjunction with race..