http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com/ How do you guys feel about this? On one hand, I'm excited, because the weather has been fantastic, and I'll actually be allowed to go without shoes around campus tomorrow, but at the same time, they're kind of slamming the lifestyle a tiny bit, aren't they? It's probably a nitpick. I'm sure they didn't set out to do it, and I'm very sorry for people who actually need protective footwear that don't have access to it. My heart does go out to them. But it's also kind of reinforcing that whole "look at the poor kid who can't afford shoes" thing. I don't know why I'm bitching about this. I'm not even a hardcore barefooter. I guess the upside is other people may be introduced to the lifestyle (though not exactly in the most awesome context) and I get to not wear shoes tomorrow. And it is for a good cause. Shouldn't forget that...
I'd rather back up projects helping to provide the poor with clean water, medical assistance, help for self-sustenance and living without the burdens of war and corporate greed. Shoes are the last thing the people this "barefoot activism" is aimed at need. Wiggling toes, somehow feeling that we already had a thread about that TOMS thing... ~*Ganesha*~
Personally I agree that it would be advantageous in helping the poor finding better ways to have easier access to food and clean water. I don't think it's anymore than a bunch of propaganda for the CEO of TOM's. I'd be willing to bet that these shoes are probably made in some third world country sweat shop, paying these poor souls pennies a day and selling these over the internet for high profit margins. What happens when these children outgrow their new shoes?? The site claims these children can't attend school without shoes....horse feathers! Come on, these are under developed third world nations, I don't believe that's a priority for them in regards to any schooling. I can't vouch for the truth in regards to the medical condition due to walking over this volcanic soil, never heard of this condition as I'm not any medical expert. The only real silver lining here is that it will encourage others to go barefoot, only if it's just for a day. I'd imagine it will probably be limited to college campuses though. Who knows, maybe it will create a few more barefooters. Anyways, I will be watching to see if I see any barefooting activity tomorrow. It will be interesting.
I do agree with genesha, there are more priorities than shoes, but sometimes shoes are required to get those things. I do think a lot of it is propaganda, but I think is to convince people who think every country has the luxuries of the u.s... I'm not against Toms, I actually wear them...
The volcanic soil disease, podoconiosis, had me going for a while, but I then realized that one thing in the treatment is often overlooked: washing the feet with clean water and antiseptic. Making clean water and antiseptic available would go a longer way than shoes in preventing disease, not to mention that a sanitation system for human waste and waste water would go an even longer way. So really, shoes aren't necessary for preventing podoconiosis, since to me, it seems that washing the feet every night after work would help these folks out just as much as putting shoes on clean feet would. Furthermore, podoconiosis is a non-filarial elephantiasis, which is far less prevalent than a worse type of elephantiasis: filarial elephantiasis (FE). FE is caused by being infected with at least one of several filarial parasites, and its treatment requires using powerful anthelmitic (deworming) drugs that have potentially nasty side effects of their own. FE could probably be eradicated by treating those suffering from it and by making available proper sanitation and clean water. Mosquitoes are to blame for spreading FE as well as many other parasitic diseases, and once their water is cleaned and they are banished from human waste, they can't infect humans with parasitic diseases anymore. Perhaps even malaria could be eradicated this way; it worked for the west.
The funny thing (so to speak) is that the only barefooter I saw yesterday was me. I took a long walk in New York City on the High Line, then in the Village, then took the subway back to where I was staying, since I had to pack for my flight out. I guess not many people knew of this initiative after all.
Here's a very good column in answer to the TOMs campaign: http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...hout-shoes-leads-to-soulsearching-about-soles This also provides some very valid and viable pro-barefoot arguments. Wiggling bare and happy toes, ~*Ganesha*~
Very good article, well researched. Some very valid arguments that most of us already know from barefooting. I believe most people buy into the TOMS theory due to brainwashing right from the beginning concerning the attitudes of footwear. The CEO of TOMS just takes that mentality and incorporates this into a business, rather simple yet clever. I didn't see anyone else walk barefoot in my area on April 8th despite our warm weather that day.
They were so happy to be out for the day... Thanks for posting that link ganesha. Like I said in my OP, I don't know why it bugged me so much, but that article puts it to rest for me.
I agree with Firefly. I'm excited about getting to go barefoot and have a "good excuse" when asked or confronted. But I think some people here are worrying about what Toms is doing WAY too much. Toms is just a shoe company. It's not Salvation Army or Red Cross. Yes, Toms could take all their earnings and spend it on clean water and sanitation, but they're a shoe company. So they chose to donate shoes. Is that a reason to despise them and think they're doing more harm than good? So they used propoganda to sell shoes. Guess what, everything you see is propoganda. From the popups on a website to the HP symbol on my computer here. That's how business stays in business. Yes, I LOVE going barefoot. It's more of my foot fetish than a "being close to nature" thing (although that part is there too) and if you hate me for it, well, that's who I am and can't change that. So when there's a chance for other people who don't have a fetish to go barefoot (or maybe they do but shy about barefooting), I'm all for it. If it gets a few people together who enjoy being barefoot, who would not ordinarily get together and have a good day- which is what happened to me on 4/8, I'm all for it. If it gets people's attention about the plight of Africa, even for a few minutes, I'm all for it. Getting mad a Toms? - Did you get mad at the singers when they recorded "We are the world" because they didn't specifically send clean water, soap and food to Africa, instead they sold albums? Sometimes there's only so much one can do- be it a person, group or company. Think not? Then I ask, why aren't you over there right now fixing it up one camp at a time- no check that- Alll the camps all at once. After all it seems that's what some people want from Toms here. For those that believe giving shoes is a detriment: So, if my car breaks down along the road and I can fix it there, should I grab a pair of gloves so my hands don't get dirty and cut or should I summons a tow truck to bring a portable sink with clean running water and soap station prior to my repair? Which is more attainable? I totally agree that everyone needs clean sanitary water, etc, but guess what- It ain't gonna happen in our lifetime. It just won't, it's too hard. And to expect Toms to do it is rediculous. And as far as the link Ganesha provided, the writer first talked about how we shouldn't push our ideals and beliefs on other nations, and then goes onto to say we should go there and provide sanitary conditions? Isn't one the other? Even if the right thing to do is fix the world, we can only do so much. Some people- some leaders don't want help- or want limited help. Anyway, that's my 2 cents- I'm not trying to piss anyone off here, I'm just saying Toms is doing what they do best- make shoes, sell shoes and offer shoes to poor countries. Maybe Aquafina should take charge of the water situation. Either way, I got to hang out with some cool barefoot girls, which you rarely see anymore, and there were others who saw that "it's not so terrible" to walk in a store or wherever barefooted.
It might have worked for some people taking part in it to lose a bit of fear and inhibition to bare their feet to the world, regardles of the usual peer pressure and mainstream myths and sneers, true enough... The key word is "propaganda", indeed. And, sadly, it doesn't help a barefooter's attempt to raise awareness towards health benefits, increased well-being and (in case it's applicable) higher spiritual contact with Mother Nature if people get to know about poor barefoot kids who have to walk miles and miles barefoot, cutting up their feet, etc. and only shoes can help them... It's because of this kind of propaganda that barefooters stepped onto the soap box and left their footprints in forums and mailing lists on that subject. If one wishes to stick with the term, barefooters published "pro-barefoot propaganda" - even though it's not based on business, since barefoot walking is a non-profit thing. Well, I don't hate anyone for his/her reasons to be barefoot or his/her liking of feet... Like I said above, if it worked to trigger some desire to be barefoot more often in those people who otherwise are too shy or afraid about it, it did some good. However, on the "attention about the plight of Africa" I hope that the people got to thinking enough in realizing that shoes aren't the only thing the people there need - and by far not the most important thing, either. I wasn't really mad at TOMS... I know that they were merely trying to set up a nice and philantropic image for their business - which is shoe sales. And charity is the best thing to do this. The USA fr Africa/Band Aid/etc. charity was not aimed at giving Sony Walkmen to the kids in Africa for them to listen to the song, or was it? The money raised in record sales was invested in things the people need... that's a quite profound difference to a shoe company sending shoes down there, isn't it? Actually, what people here commented on was the unnecessary pairing of poverty and being barefoot and making this into a chance for a company to raise their positive image and thereby to raise their profits in shoe sales. The old equation of barefoot = poor is one of the oldest myths barefooters have tried to debunk - and TOMS isn't helping much in that by their campaign. As far as taking care of the other necessities in Africa or other countries where the situation calls for it, there are already many initiatives and projects running on a local or regional scale - and my opinion is that it's better to back up such initiatives and projects with my funds than by giving money to companies such as TOMS Your analogy does not apply to the situation as presented by TOMS, IMO. They are talking about feet needing protection on a 24/7 basis. If you don gloves for a car repair, you take them off afterwards, don't you? Anyone who has been walking barefoot all his/her life has strong enough feet that make shoes almost unnecessary. In fact, a lot of foot problems start when someone with healthy bare feet starts wearing shoes (as written in the column I linked to, and as proven by studies made on those people). And most people there who have to cross distances over very rough surfaces have minimal footwear to protect their soles, even without TOMS sending shoes down there... And, well, leaders in those regions are quite likely to deny help if it means that they will stay in power. If they accept it, their subjects might realize that their leader cannot care for them alone, and might stand up against him. Well, I'm not pissed off, everyone's entitled to an opinion and discussion about such topics spices things up, IMO... And I hope you enjoyed your barefoot day. Wiggling toes, ~*Ganesha*~
