So a few days ago I said I’d break down why I’m not on board with “alliance” as a term for people who seek to dismantle systems that privilege them to use to describe themselves.  Here goes:

1. Alliance is a state that two parties enter on mutual negotiation and agreement.  One does not declare oneself an ally, nor is there such a thing as being an ally to anything as nebulous as an entire demographic.
2. People enter alliances because they have determined that it is in their mutual interests to do so. It is presumptuous of a privileged person to assert that is the case with regards to someone occupying an oppressed space.
3. Alliances last until they no longer meet the mutual needs of the partners.  Between the privileged and the oppressed, this translates into privileged people acting in favor of oppressed people as long as it isn’t inconvenient.  That’s not the ticket.
4. Alliances come down to people bartering considerations.  One ally reasonably expects the effort they put into the alliance will be reciprocated.  This is not an appropriate model for people to dismantle systems that privilege them.
5. Related to point 4, if someone hasn’t figured out that they need to dismantle a system of oppression that privileges them because it’s in their own interest to do so, there’s a fundamental truth they’re missing.  If they have gained that understanding, they’re not acting from a space of alliance, they’re acting in their own intersts.