The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1903-10-22
WHY WEAR sHoEs7
ASKS a PHILOSOPHER.

A philosopher philosophers,
in fact-have arisen against the shoe
He. the one in particular, revolts
against connning his feet in leather
bonds And he revolts more stNenu-
ously against the idea Of women put
ting their shapely feet in high heeled
French shoes
Paul Thieman is the philosopher in
particular. Nannette Magruder Pratt
is another Both object to the shoe
They look back with regret back to
the days when Greeks tramped the
pavements Of Athens in sandals and
when Romans trotted about the i'm.
perial city in similar freedom
Here is an age Of greater freedom
politically, intellectually, and religi
ously. and greater bigotry with regard
to feet People have given their
heads more liberty and their feet less.
OF course now it is pv-sible that
the fairly wen grown and the middle
aged would object to showing their
feet in sandals. They have worn
shoes so long that their feet have be.
come deformed But the children
might start out to give theG feet a
chance That is what the philoso,
pliers would like to see come to pass
MT Thieman states his case thus;
To-day men and women exist
o. 81 Oh
of fsefr clothes. Their bodies are
never exposed to the elements 'rhe
consequence is physical deformity
but the worst feature of the mod
ern dress is the leather shoe, and
believe that the time viii come when
the sandal shall reappear and dresI
shall undergo vital changes
ut is sufficient evidence of thel
monstrous peryersity OF secludpg the
foot in a leather sheath tha. only
. persons of means above the average
can preserve the beauty Of their feet
Unless shoes are selected with care
and the man or woman is hble 10
possess several pairs. the foot IS nee
essarily injured
THE wearing Of one pair OF shoes
day IN and day out as thousands are
forced to DO. is a vile thing-vlle.
vilel
During the spanish war 1t was
found that only about one of FIVE able
bodied colored men who wanted 10
enlist had decent feet 1t was quite
b trouble for this reason TO recruit
negro regiments. The chief explana-
ion was that the negroes. being poor.
Nwere forced to wear from childhood |
eoarse shoes which did not it, and in
consequence their feet were ruined. |
1T is only necessary to trace the
history Of the shoe to see that it is
IN evil which ought 70 be abolished in
he name Of comfort, beauty and
a npliness.
q 1.-THE reason why not is simply that
.nost Of as. men or women, would not |
Ike to- disclose our feet. for they l
nave beon leformed by Shoes We
have corns We have crsmped toes 4
"It is i6le TO say leather foot shells |
IRE necessary because Of the climate.
I our faces can be exposed to all |
Weather. why not our feet?
"The shoe is a form Of hypocrisy |
BIZ dint OF artistic shoes we present
handsome extremities Aud by dint
'f the art OF tho tailor and the modiste
Ne cover our ugly nakedness with
garments which suggest beauty ead
trength We DO not possess
THE fashion of the sandal would
orce msn and women 20 do every
hing to make their feet look good
course wa Aouii have powdoro !
nd rouged feet--and the fact Of
hildren reyolutionized 20 sandals in
ne g,nerstion woull eradics;e the
orn. he ingrowins rail, anl avHy
ther dreadful consequtrcs Of the
lonster shoe seathe>'