White man speak with forked 'tongue' ...

BEAVERTON, OR - Nike on Tuesday unveiled what it said is the first shoe designed specifically for American Indians, an effort aiming at promoting physical fitness in a population with high obesity rates.

The Beaverton-based company says the Air Native N7 is designed with a larger fit for the distinct foot shape of American Indians, and has a culturally specific look. It will be distributed solely to American Indians; tribal wellness programs and tribal schools nationwide will be able to purchase the shoe at wholesale price and then pass it along to individuals, often at no cost.

"Nike is aware of the growing health issues facing Native Americans," said Sam McCracken, manager of Nike's Native American Business program. "We are stepping up our commitment ... to elevate the issue of Native American health and wellness."

Nike said it is the first time it has designed a shoe for a specific race or ethnicity. It said all profits from the sale of the shoe will be reinvested in health programs for tribal lands, where problems with obesity, diabetes and related conditions are near epidemic levels in some tribes.

Nike designers and researchers looked at the feet of more than 200 people from more than 70 tribes nationwide and found that in general, American Indians have a much wider and taller foot than the average shoe accommodates. The average shoe width of men and women measured was three width sizes larger than the standard Nike shoe.

As a result, the Air Native is wider with a larger toe box. The shoe has fewer seams for irritation and a thicker sock liner for comfort. Link

Let's examine this story in more detail. First, you should go read the whole thing.

   Few corporations are as adept at marketing as Nike - Phil Knight is a certifiable genius. This new line of shoes will be very expensive, more so than the run-of-the-mill (sorry) athletic shoe. The greater cost will be ascribed to the usage of more material, the research conducted, the separate ad campaigns and the fact that it is a 'niche item' and thus cannot be produced in as great a quantity as the more widely sold lines, hence smaller profit margin. Okay fine.

   But that is all bullshit. The actual cost of a pair of Nikes is around $5.00 - the rest is all hype and profit. And you can expect these 'injun' shoes to cost close to $200.00, if not more. Nike is trying to give the impression that they will offer discounts to Native America organizations. Newsflash! Native Americans have the highest ratio of poverty and public assistance of any race (ack) in America. That means that these will be paid for with taxpayer money, by and large (oops). Rest assured that local, state and the federal government will find ways to fund the purchase of these race-specific shoes. The Americans with Disabilities Act will come into play eventually. And I have no qualms about that at all.

   I've said it often enough hereon, that I personally find the situation on the reservation abhorent AND that I am mostly Indian myself. So when I see the white man trying to blow smoke up my ass, I go on the warpath. Here's the real deal. This 'foot size and structure' issue is NOT isolated to Native Americans. Most people in this nation have Native American blood and thus, there are MILLIONS of Americans with this 'bigfoot' affliction. (You knew THAT was comin') Nike is merely doing something that should've been done decades ago. Make shoes designed for real people.

   I had a girlfriend who was a shoe model, and as with clothes models, she was diminuitive and had tiny feet - Size 4 1/2 - and THAT's why she was a shoe model. shoes are designed for small feet - ask ANY woman. Men too, have to buy work boots a half or whole size bigger because their toes get crunched - ask any guy who has worn steel-toed boots. Not only that, I once was very good friends with the CEO of one the largest shoe manucturers in the world at the time - 'I Miller' - so I know a little something about this. Basically, what Nike is doing is making a product they should have been making all along, appealing to our collective sympathies, playing the race card, pretending to be a corporate angel, acting very self righteous and getting a huge amount of free publicity. When in actuality, they are planning to rip off taxpayers, pandering to liberals, patronizing Native Americans and offsetting some of that ugly publiicty which keeps raising it head regarding forced and slave labor in Third World countries.

   All that said - I've lived with 'injun foot' all my life, but nobody ever put a name to my affliction - hell, I just thought I had big feet. I'm glad that the problem is being addressed and if could afford these shoes - I'd probaby buy 'em, just like 100 million other Americans. But I sure don't appreciate a bunch of corporate toadies tryin' to pull a fast one. And you know what really pisses me off? They will not only get away with it, make boatloads of money doing so, but will also be able make people buy this 'kinder gentler' corporation bullshit.

Spread the word!

Comments

[Phoenix]

Maybe Crocs can jump in. They wouldn't have to make any moderations, and their shoe probably costs a nickel to make.

Where do get the state that most Americans have Indian blood in them??

[Bomb-a-rama]

Oddly enough, for the past twenty years or more, the only sneaker-style shoes I've ever bought are Nikes. None of the really expensive shit, but the practical running shoes and the cross-trainers before they turned ugly.

[Steel]

Extrapolation ...

According to the 2000 census, over 4.5 million 'claimed' that fact.

Hispanics comprise over 20% of the population and of those, at least 85% have 'Indian blood' (mestizo).

Blacks activively interbred with Native Americans prior to the Civil War and to a lesser extent afterwards, until the early 20th century. Any black lineage that goes back further than 1900 almost certanly has Indian blood.

Native Americans came from Asia to begin with and the 'problem' addressed in the article is also common there - feet that are wide across the toes. That is why young girls feet were 'bound' in China and Japan. So people with Asian heritage are also more likely to have this affliction.

The large population of Germans who migrated to the central south and southwest in the mid to late 19th century also interbred with Native Americans - I am a product of that.

The largest single family in the US (the Browns) is of German descent from the regions of TX, AR, OK and LA - my first inlaws were from that family. They interbred with Cherokees who arrived in the region on the Trail of Tears mass tribal relocation

Interbreeding between white settlers and Indians was much more common than is thought. The first settlers were invariably men and the lack of suitable mates in the new territories led to lots of mixing.

Creoles are also mostly 'native Americans'.

Polynesians are commonly so afflicted, too.

This 'injun foot' syndrome is much like brown hair or detached ear lobes in scale and certainly not confined to the reservation.

As with any genetic trait, its magnitude will be be mitigated by further out-breeding.

Now, shoes, as we know them, were first designed and produced in Europe, and in the 19th century, Italy and France were the major centers of design, and so, shoes were made for the feet of those peoples. Typically flat and narrow and that became 'desirable' or fashionable and to a large extent, that profile still shapes shoes. It is a bias of the industry.

Elsewhere, shoe wearers were forced to make a painfull choice - either buy shoes which cramped the toes OR buy shoes long enough to provide sufficient space to prevent that problem. There were no EEE shoes 100 years ago. DD was about as wide as you could find in any shoe store in the 50s. But the percentage of people with foot sizes in excess of 'C' is huge, certainly the majority. This Eurpoen bias and the depiction of fashion models with 'dainty' feet led to the fact that podiatry was one of the most popular medical school majors starting in the 60s.

'Foot' problems are right up there with 'back' complaints in occurence and the cause of both is predominately ill-fitting shoes - any podiatrist or orthopedic surgeon will attest to that.

Prior to 1960, 'tennis shoes' were for gym and teenagers nothing else, it was considered in bad taste to wear them anywhere else and in fact, tennis shoes were often banned in restaurants, church and hospitals. Along came Keds and Hushpuppies, both are made of soft pliable material and yield to wider feet AND to feet which spread under the weight of an increasingly more obese population. Good leather shoes just don't give and went out of favor, replaced by straps, sandals, athletic shoes and even today - Crocs.

Until the entrance of Nike, Reebok and others, athletic shoes were constructed with woven material and gave way to lateral pressure. The new and improved 'sports shoes' returned to leather, mostly from a durability AND appearance standpoint and that is when this issue of having wide feet returned to shoe wearers.

Fashion demands that women's (and therfore ALL) shoes have the smallest possible profile, which meant the toes got cramped once again in shoes made of materials which would not give. The shoe industry was also motivated by a desire to use less of the often expensive materals with which to manufacture shoes.

Hence this Nike move - less leather, larger profile, and more soft padding inside with fewer seams (which also do not yield).

I did a lot of research trying to find an actual number or percentage of Americans with some Indian blood - to no avail.

That's probably because ...

A. Most people who have any Indian blood may not even be aware of it.

B. Most people are proud of other more predominant heritages - Irish, German, English, Italian etc.

C. Some people prefer to ignore or deny their native, mesoamerican or proto-american heritage or the possibility thereof for racial reasons - especially in areas close to large populations of Native Americans or Hispanics.

D. The desire to be seen as 'American' is still strong, even in the face of an ever increasing multi-culturalism.

E. The amount of Indian or native blood may be so small that poeple don't consider it a factor.

But I am willing to bet that over half of Amercian citizens have some, no matter how negligible, Native American blood and therefore are more likely to have feet which fit the profile mentioned in the article.

BTW. I mentioned detached ear lobes. That is fairly evenly divided in our population as are tongues which either 'curl' or 'roll' AND the frequency and distribution of people with that little dimple-like pair of ridges on the upper lip extending from just under the nostrils and its prominence - the philtrum.

All are genetic characteristics which originate on the basis of race.

For a guy who hates footwear of all kinds and wore flip flps for twenty years, I sure know a lot about shoes and stuff, huh?

[Bigfoot]

Bomb ...

You should try a pair of New Balance.

They rule.

[Phoenix]

New Balance are the best, Bomb. Try a pair next time you're on the look-out for sneaks. I like them because you can get them with a minimum of splashy color. Plus they're the best. Oh, and they come in widths. I can get narrow. Imagine that.

Nice history, Steel. If everyone wore Crocs, podiatrists would go out of business. Even for people like me - with a quad heel and AA front, Crocs work. I have to wear thick socks, but they work.

[Christine]

I am wondering why I can't find any information on what this foot is supposed to look like. I have Cherokee in my distant past. Are they now trying to tell me that is the reason I can never find a shoe that fits?

[Steel]

Christine ...

Yeah, that is what they are saying in a roundabout and profitable way.

The foot is much wider across the ball - the base of toes.

Usually a high arch - if you walk barefoot with your feet wet on concrete - the inside of your arch - that part on the bottom and that faces the other foot may not even touch ground.

And on the top of the foot next to the ankle - where the laces are - it is much higher or 'taller'.

Shorter stubby toes too.

I have always had to buy shoes at least one full size too big, sometimes more, to keep from getting cramped side-to-side.

And the first part of my shoes to wear out was the outside ball.

Hope that answers your question.

[Jim Mcfalls]

Dang it I never think of my injun blood but if that don't describe my feet you couldn't describe them

However; I like bigfoot am pretty happy with New Balance

[OINK]

OINK has zero Indian blood, is a tad over 5'10", and wears a ten-and-a-half D. He has walked all over hell and half of Vietnam, with nary a bit of foot trouble. My arches are a beautiful thing to behold; my daughter inherited them, causing her dance teacher to go ga-ga in amazement.

Ruth, on the other hand, needs surgery for bunions -- just like her Mom did.

Sounds like bullshit to me, also. People who buy BRAND NAME in shoes aren't rational anyhow. Nothing wrong with marketing to populations with unusual size/shape feet.

[Phoenix]

Just because you buy your treads at Wal-Mart, Oink... I *can't* buy cheap shoes because my feet are so narrow. I have to buy special shoes and that means a brand name that makes special sizes. Nike doesn't. New Balance does.

[OINK]

A year ago, Ruth took (diabetic) OINK to a top notch shoe store and got a $160 pair of top-notch tennies, no brand name. They remmain comfortable & show no wear so far -- and I wear the shit out of them. Lesson: quality shoes pay.

[Phoenix]

Oink. $160 that are not brand name? Some brand name company makes them. And yes, quality shoes are worth it. So are Crocs. You ought to try a pair of those. You'll never take them off.

[Christine]

Wow, you described my feet perfectly. Once I found Bass sneakers that were a dream.....could never find them again. Believe me I didn't pay full price. Got them at an outlet store for $30. Wish I could find them again. Closest to comfort I've ever experienced.

[LEVI DECORA]

once and for all/it was the athabaskin/navajo who crossed that famous landbridge. really know your anthro. histroy before you OPEN YOUR PILGRIM YAP.my tribr thr HO-CHUNK of wisconsin/part of us are in winnebago ne.OLMEC from central america we were once 5 bands.from ohio to wisconsin that was all ours.say i lie and i refer you to U.C.L.A. STUDIES THAT CONFIRM THIS.oh yeah white is NOT a color nor is black.n.a.a.c.p. leave out the color part,cause yellow man red man and brown man never have been served by this BLACK ONLY OUTFIT.NOT HATE JUST BLUNT FORWARD FACT.SHOES? HA I CAN'T GET ORTHOPADIC SHOES! LEVI