The exercise of critique is one of the main ways of improving debates in the social sciences. In this sense, David Lehmann's text is welcome. However, I do not fully agree with several aspects of his criticisms. I highlight, in particular, his denial of the historically objective character of racism and its consequences, and his failure to consider the complexity of the articulations within and between which contemporary indigenous movements move. I also find his conceptions of universalism debatable. But I agree with his view that there is a simplification of Western thought and modernity by decolonials, a strong critique also made a few years ago by one of the founders of decolonial thought, Santiago Castro-Gómez, which I present in my text. Finally, I expose my disagreements with what I call the heuristic hypertrophy of colonialism made by decolonials and introduce, in addition to the coloniality of power, the notions of indigeneity, nationality, globality and imperiality of power.

The decrease in the importance of the participation of anthropologists in public debates is the result of various factors, some internal to the discipline, others external. Triviality, high specialization, and neglect of issues of broad public interest are issues that need to be debated. Likewise, the current resurgence of discourses of intolerance and racism points to the possible arrival of a postmulticultural era where anthropological knowledge must be repositioned. The internet is another important variable in understanding contemporary anti-intellectualism, as it generates a renewed illusion of transparency that makes the social sciences seem useless. Ethnography, with its ability to bring us closer to agents, is a basis for anthropologists to take up a political / public role.