Making the world a sadder place with shoes

In a lot of parts of the world walking barefoot was the norm for millennia. I love the sensation of walking barefoot, and while the 'civilised' environment isn't the nicest to walk on, using barefoot shoes is the next best thing. I happily confess wearing shoes for the last three years or so that provide a similar amount of feedback from the ground like walking barefoot, while providing a lot of protection from things you might step on.

As bodyworker, I advocate freedom for the feet, although it might remove my client's necessity for treatment. Evolution provided us with the a thick skin under our feet, which moved us through all sort of terrains. But then, all I have is my personal experience, my own understanding of the evolutionary process and potentially the support of a minority of like-minded people. I obviously lack the impulse to do good by preventing harm at all costs.

The One on One Movement is a different kettle of fish. Blake Mycoskie went to Argentina and saw not only barefoot people (o shock, o horror!), he also saw the terrors of a shoeless existence:

Why shoes?

Many children in developing countries grow up barefoot. Whether at play, doing chores or going to school, these children are at risk:

•A leading cause of disease in developing countries is soil-transmitted diseases, which can penetrate the skin through bare feet. Wearing shoes can help prevent these diseases, and the long-term physical and cognitive harm they cause.

•Wearing shoes also prevents feet from getting cuts and sores. Not only are these injuries painful, they also are dangerous when wounds become infected.

•Many times children can't attend school barefoot because shoes are a required part of their uniform. If they don't have shoes, they don't go to school. If they don't receive an education, they don't have the opportunity to realize their potential.

Oh my god, disease and infection lurk in the soil, and children miss out in their conditioning to become a worker bee. And, for fornication's sake, it's children AT RISK! Would somebody pleeeeeeeeeease think about the kids!

So let's imagine a small Argentinian village, subsiding on agriculture, and engaging a bit in crafts and trade. What kind of problems might a place like that face, after the reign of US supported dictators, a total economic crashes in the 80s of the last century?

Good Man: Hello, villager, I came here to help the children.

Villager: Hello, wow, that's fantastic! Welcome!

( Friendly hug follows)

V: We can need some help....

GM: That's what I thought as well

V: Access to clean water would be great

GM: Sure.

V: And with the high taxes we struggle to bring food onto the table

GM: That's bad.

V: There's no hospital and no doctors around.

GM: Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I can't really help you directly with any of this, but indirectly.

V: What do you mean?

GM: I got shoes.

V: ???

GM: With shoes your kids can walk to the water supply, and keep their feet sheltered on the long way a doctor. 

V: We have shoe makers, but not all of us want and can afford to wear shoes all the time.

GM: Shoes protect your children from harm.

V: Why not a wind generator?

GM: Shoes. Everyone is better off with a pair of shoes.

V: Or some solar panels?

GM: Shoes. Step into the new world.

V: A new communal well?

GM: Shoes is what I got, shoes is what you get.

V: Shoes?

GM: Shoes. Your kids will just love them, trust me.

V: O my, I get the shoes blues... (walks away barefoot)

Donating and sharing seem and sound similar, yet they are worlds apart. By donating a specific good, one subverts the existing local market and creates a dependency. That way, much of African food production was undermined and heavily damaged, just to be picked for cheap by foreign companies. 

The shoe economy might be less essential for survival than food production, yet mankind has evolved far from being instinctively driven food processors (although some revert for shorter or longer periods of time into such a state). A free and just world won't be poor, only the promoters of the status quo insist on austerity as primary survival strategy. 

If I share life-sustaining knowledge (how to cook, grow food, heal, arts, crafts) I empower the receiver, If I share life-sustaining resources (food, shelter, attention) I also empower the receiver, by assisting and easing his/her survival needs. Donations don't empower, and might contribute to more problems than were helped initially.

So while it's honourable to engage in a good cause, it's much easier to help your own community. Not that it doesn't matter how well off our remote brothers and sisters are, without a personal connection we wouldn't know anyway. Unless, of course, unless everyone is better off with a pair of shoes.