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.
> 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.