I thought about posting this in GD, but then, I don’t have cites, and don’t want to debate it, really.
My church has a yearly trip to some impovershed area in Mexico, and before they go, they always collect donated shoes to take to the children down there, because “some of these children have lived their entire lives without any shoes.”
I don’t think they should do this. If the kid has lived it’s entire life without shoes, surely the sole of their foot has hardened and calloused to the point that they don’t need any shoes. If this is true, then providing shoes for a child with such feet would allow the sole to soften from the cushioning, sweat, and lack of roughness. Then, when the shoe wears out and is thrown away or destroyed, the child now has soft feet (which they’ve never had to deal with before) and no shoes. If we accept this as the case, I think more harm than good is being done by giving these poor kids shoes, not to mention the fact that it will make them dependant on the product of an industrialized nation, if we “give every child a pair of shoes to wear.”
Am I greedy, just overlooking something, or do I have a sound argument? Something just doesn’t seem right about this.
–Tim