Rensselaer Republican, Volume 15, Number 36, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 May 1883 — REVERSED WAYS. [ARTICLE]

REVERSED WAYS.

diking O»*iir*<r <!>s** lb t*e BfinMafti of Wrom Chambers’ Journal] To remove the covering of the feet, and not of the head, is a mark of respect in the East. It is easy enough to see how the pulling off the shoes on entering a house oame to be a social observance very early in the East The Orientals sit and recline on carpets placed on the floor or on a dais. This takes the place of our couches or chairs. To a Mohammedan gentleman, the dais, covered with its carpet and with its pillows and bolsters, represents house and home. Here he passes the greater part of his time; here he does his work, and here he receives his friends. This dais is his drawing-room, dining-room, bedroom. To come on to the carpet with shoes after walking in the miry and dusty ways of the East would soon soil and dirty it. This is the main reason for the observance. But another, doubtless, is that it would be very uncomfortable to squat down with your feet under you with hard shoes on; beside, it would soil your garments. It may be conjectured that one reason for not removing the head covering is that most Eastern nations shave the top of the head only, letting the lower hair hang down long. Thus the hair is kept or worn in a manner suitable only to the head being covered. To appear without the covering is like a bald man appearing without his wig. Even in his own home, when a native removes his turban, he puts on a small, light skull-cap. It would be a great mark of disrespect for one of your native servants to come before you without his turban and with only his skull-cap on; and, without his cummurbiihd round his waist, it would be like a footman coming in without his coat. This difference of custom is no mere trifling matter, but has been a grave political question in India. The “shoe question* is one that has led to trouble between what are called the more enlightened natives and the English for many years past. The former claimed that when they wore shoes after the English fashion they should not be called upon to take them off on occasions of ceremonial visits or on public occasions. On the other hand, masters (English) in colleges would not let students enter their rooms, Judges (English) would not let native .'egentlemen enter their court houses without their first taking their shoes off. This was not from any personal arrogance, but from regard to their official dignity. To enter a place E with shoes on is a strong mark of disrespect in the East, and they do not wish to submit to this. They claimed that one mark of respect or the other should be adhered to—that the men should either take off their shoes or un- * cover the head. Lord Lawrence, when Viceroy, had to issue a state injunction on the subject! It is strange to see the old Eastern custom still surviving among the Jews. The English Jew, who in all other places has accepted the English views and practice in the matter, keeps the modern tall hat on in the synagogue.