She wrote about things everyone writes about, but she put them in contexts that other people ignored.

That's why she's still relevant. It's not just that a thing happened and what the author thinks about the prevailing opinion of why that thing happened, but what was the historical, social, cultural context that led to it? That sort of thing she had a talent for explaining, without worrying about who she offended the ideology of in the process, as the article states.

Her ideas are over half a century old but are frighteningly applicable to current events. As a species we seem doomed to repeat the same mistakes again and again.