Shoes without traction?

If I recall the exact wording in that scene correctly, he said that the shoes had no "tread". By this he means that there are no distinctive grooves in the sole that would leave a characteristic track on impressionable ground. It does not mean that the sole was completely smooth; it still had a kind of dimpled texture that would generate sufficient friction with damp ground. I wouldn't want to slop around in slushy snow with them, but they'd probably do fine on mildly-slick rocks and embankments.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source= web&cd=9&ved=0CEkQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sodhoppers.com %2F&ei=DirDU4G0CMeHyASHrIC4Bw&usg=AFQjCNF0udXXSGbVgKdub4KSM64p WFtYTA&sig2=mvbfWP85n7MP1uWspOQjdg&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw&c ad=rja
_____________________________________________________________________________
The liberal ideology despises self reliance, all you need is the government.

Very old thread, but I just want to add that real shoes don't have "tread". Just ready-made shoes from the Far East or South Asia, which are bought as mass market footwear in most places nowadays. Even now, the traditional footwear of Europe and the Americas consists of shoes without tread: patent leathers with leather soles. I'm sure every man has a pair of proper Oxfords or Brogues at some point in his life. In having no tread, Western shoes are the same as all traditional leather footwear from places as diverse as India, the Central Asian steppes, China and Iran.

The way leather soles work is that they slip a lot at first. It's like walking on ice. After about a week of wear, they have broken in and lost the outer hard layer, so they fold over the ground when you walk. They don't slip at all.

The only reason people wear rubber-soled treaded footwear nowadays is because they are cheaper to manufacture and don't need to be replaced every month (unlike leather soles).

You learn to walk differently when "all you have" is "slippery soled moccasins".

````````````
Imagine that.