Read on Twitter
Worth considering, in light of recent events. Honestly, I would be grateful if Matt Mercer openly said that he played my game and tried to explore the position of being a queer mixed race person, for all to see.
He doesn't even need to get it perfect, just attempt respectfully. https://twitter.com/ajitgeorgeSB/status/1326372574935199744
He doesn't even need to get it perfect, just attempt respectfully. https://twitter.com/ajitgeorgeSB/status/1326372574935199744
An hour later, and I still need to unpack more. Let's look at the Mercer Effect from a development economics perspective from my position.
I am a creator who at one point worked 3 part-time and 2 full-time jobs at once. To say I was run ragged is an understatement.
I am a creator who at one point worked 3 part-time and 2 full-time jobs at once. To say I was run ragged is an understatement.
Everyone around me was in a similar boat. While we'd support each other, our shared lack of access to the market meant our mutual support could only sustain our status. Why didn't our sacrifices for each other make meaningful change? It was support to live, not support to thrive.
Some of my friends were making the best artistic work of their lives but were not successful economically. Eventually, that meant leaving for work that sustained them, even if it didn't satisfy them.
We ran ourselves ragged because we didn't have the support we needed.
We ran ourselves ragged because we didn't have the support we needed.
Economics tells us that successful spending (investment really) is measured by a multiplier effect; that for every dollar spent inside it, the local economy reaps returns.
But though we were spending on each other, we weren't participating in the market per se.
But though we were spending on each other, we weren't participating in the market per se.
Our problem was that the market didn't know about us. We were nada. We were structurally disadvantaged from participating because the money we spent on each other was nothing compared to competition with marketing budgets, cultural clout, etc.
We were, in short, invisible.
We were, in short, invisible.
These structural barriers are often surmounted by capital, but surprise surprise, capital is hard to come by, particularly for BIPOCs. While much has been said of the emerging purchasing power of our communities, we can hardly say that the money is enough to go around yet.
This brings us to the Mercer Effect. His participation has monetary value. It's advertising. It gets buyers. It's what marketing departments are designed to do.
In short: it's capital.
In short: it's capital.
His participation has a monetary value that the people he supports/endorses didn't have to pay out of their own pocket. This means that any money that they make thanks t his participation is money straight into their bank accounts.
That money becomes further capital.
That money becomes further capital.
Because capital is the great enabler in a capitalist system, what the Mercer Effect actually does is an enabling of anyone so endorsed to actually participate in the market.
And I'm glad when those participants are BIPOC.
And I'm glad when those participants are BIPOC.
NOTE: does this mean that Mercer gets a free pass for performing problematically? No.
However, does this mean that Mercer cannot make attempts to successfully navigate through potentially problematic content? No.
However, does this mean that Mercer cannot make attempts to successfully navigate through potentially problematic content? No.
Should he be prepared, briefed, and readied to make such an attempt in good faith? Particularly when the returns of that attempt means more BIPOC at the table, because the returns enable BIPOC creators to remain in the industry at all?
Yes.
Yes.
I appreciate all the support I've received over the years as someone who deeply cares about art. But let's be honest, a lot of these friends who complain about patronage (patronage is arguably what Mercer's doing) are also guilty of shaming people who are already disadvantaged!
We know what's blocking access for BIPOC from generating wealth: it's the lack of capital. And it's also that lack that sends BIPOC to work in other industries where they can finally access it.
We're losing our artists and designers because they need to feed themselves.
We're losing our artists and designers because they need to feed themselves.
More distressing: we are driving away allies with capital because of a willingness born of knee-jerking to portray their actions as bad faith gestures/severe missteps.
How about this: WHY DON'T WE EQUIP ALLIES TO DO WELL BY US SO THAT MORE PEOPLE GIVE US MONEY.
How about this: WHY DON'T WE EQUIP ALLIES TO DO WELL BY US SO THAT MORE PEOPLE GIVE US MONEY.
Does this sound grasping? Distressingly utilitarian? Maybe. But that money - the thing that we need to feed ourselves, fund our dreams, and include us on the table - has to come from somewhere.
And yes, it will come with strings. Everything has strings.
And yes, it will come with strings. Everything has strings.
Thus, when it comes to issues of capital: I understand that it is a distressing reality that we need to navigate. However, we also need to acknowledge that we have the capacity to successfully navigate this problem.
