Ah, Julius Deane, I love you. We are telling the exact same story — me from here, you from there — and you feel it, urchin.

That “nagging thought in the back of [your] head”? Dissonance, and one that we share. Ally, as it is commonly used and understood, is precisely as you describe it: “‘<GROUP> Ally’ to me indicates someone who is allied with the group in question.”

We are both keyed in on the lack of fidelity between how WAs want everyone to see things (as set forth in my essays) versus how it actually manifests (as set forth in your comment). I can only speak from my perspective:

The WA model makes no sense because “White” + “Ally” is the textbook definition of counter-intuitive.

16/Why “White Ally” when that makes exactly zero sense in the same way “Rich Ally: Champion of the Poor” does; “Fox Ally: A Hen’s Best Friend,” does; and, “Penny Wise Ally: All Children Matter,” does as well? May I ask, is the public messaging priority in the naming convention (1) a person is White; and, (2) a person is a good? Does this call your motives into question?

For clarification, a Black Anti-Racism Ally would fail to communicate what, please?

You, my friend, have an entire essay of your own in your perspective: “In taking the time and energy to lay this all out for us, it occurs to me that a white ally isn’t white. Maybe a white ally is a POC who is willing to expose themselves at risk, in all sorts of ways, to push us towards the work and understanding we need to do to clean up our own damn mess.”

Yes, you make sense. No, you are neither myopic nor offensive. You have a story we all would benefit from tremendously, should you decide to explore and share.

P.S. BTW, this? “POC who is willing to expose themselves at risk. . .” That was the pre-Ahmaud Arbery approach. We’re done here. Clearly, it doesn’t work. TNSWA is how we’re going forward, friend.