[asolove]

You can know almost all you need to know about this article from this sentence:

> This is even more true today, when the intersectional grid draws rigid lines between “oppressor” and “oppressed” that Baldwin, despite the animus against white America that ballooned as he aged, was far too subtle a thinker to accept.

If you think that the inline definition of "intersectional" is an accurate one, the rest of the essay follows. You may or may not learn anything, though if this prompts you to read "Go Tell It on the Mountain", that would be a great outcome.

If you actually know anything about theory, then you'll see the rest of the essay as rhetorical shadow-boxing with something no one is actually saying.

[aidenn0]

> If you actually know anything about theory, then you'll see the rest of the essay as rhetorical shadow-boxing with something no one is actually saying.

If you've run into more than a few people with liberal arts degrees that are more-or-less unrelated to Ethnic Studies talking about intersectionality, then you have heard people saying exactly what she is arguing with.

I didn't see a date on this article, but if it's recent it is perhaps a bit late to the party, as the peak of this was probably somewhere in the late twenty-teens.

[freen]

Same same with Quantum Mechanics.

Serious people don’t write serious articles about quantum copper luck bracelets.

[woodruffw]

Looks like it’s from the summer 2025 edition. So you your point, a little late (and I think cliched by now).

I thought the rest of the piece was good, however: the author substantiates her basic claim that Baldwin’s appeal is universal and humanistic in nature well with her selection of reviews.