News   Dec 20, 2024
 961     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 737     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.2K     0 

What I Miss About Toronto In 60's

Think it was a volume a month.

Around the same time, Loblaws was also into "Lucky Green" savings stamps.

Green%2BStamps%2Bblock.jpg


HISTORY_1959.jpg


My tongue gets sticky thinking about those times. My parent's table lamp came from those stamps. (Now it's electronically.)

Of course those Loblaws stores were large compared to other stores along the street, but much smaller than the current stores.
First%20Loblaws%20store%20in%20Toronto,%20511%20Yonge%20Street%20-%201919.jpg
 
Last edited:
Think it was a volume a month.

Around the same time, Loblaws was also into "Lucky Green" savings stamps.

Green%2BStamps%2Bblock.jpg


HISTORY_1959.jpg


My tongue gets sticky thinking about those times. My parent's table lamp came from those stamps. (Now it's electronically.)

Of course those Loblaws stores were large compared to other stores along the street, but much smaller than the current stores.
First%20Loblaws%20store%20in%20Toronto,%20511%20Yonge%20Street%20-%201919.jpg

When my Mom passed two years ago, in her personal effects I found a whole bunch of those Green Stamps in a folder.
 
The soft chocolate ice cream cones mom would buy in the tunnel at the old Eatons annex. The giveaways at the Ex would fill your bag. When shopping the Danforth was an excursion from Gerrard St. And, Yonge Street cruising in the later 60's. Heck, some of us have memories that even extend to the 50's.
 
The soft chocolate ice cream cones mom would buy in the tunnel at the old Eatons annex. The giveaways at the Ex would fill your bag. When shopping the Danforth was an excursion from Gerrard St. And, Yonge Street cruising in the later 60's. Heck, some of us have memories that even extend to the 50's.

I'd forgotten the soft ice cream in the old annex...do u remember the smell of cooking food in there?
 
@lrookies
Sure do remember the smells, but
my cafeteria favourites were egg salad sandwich on white bread, or a hot dog when I was quite young, pre- 60's.
 
What I don't miss is the showing of a short film playing the anthem ("God Save The Queen", later replaced with "Oh, Canada") at the end of the movie day.

They also played the anthem during dances, usually at the end. Sporting events had them play it at the start.

In addition, television stations played the anthem at the end of the broadcast day. (TV stations didn't have infomercials all morning long or ancient movies, back then.)

Apparently, the reason they started playing the anthem was because of World War II, to show patriotism and to support the war effort. They continued playing it after the war, but by the 1970's they finally disappeared, slowly. Some venues, usually veteran organizations, still play the anthem at their events.

Mentioned this because of the uproar over a football player in the States not standing during their playing of their anthem.
 
What I don't miss is the showing of a short film playing the anthem ("God Save The Queen", later replaced with "Oh, Canada") at the end of the movie day.

They also played the anthem during dances, usually at the end. Sporting events had them play it at the start.

In addition, television stations played the anthem at the end of the broadcast day. (TV stations didn't have infomercials all morning long or ancient movies, back then.)

Apparently, the reason they started playing the anthem was because of World War II, to show patriotism and to support the war effort. They continued playing it after the war, but by the 1970's they finally disappeared, slowly. Some venues, usually veteran organizations, still play the anthem at their events.

Mentioned this because of the uproar over a football player in the States not standing during their playing of their anthem.

That's interesting. The US football player, Colin Kaepernick refusing to stand during the anthem has re-ignited (amongst other things) the debate over playing anthems at sporting events. And personally, his "protest" is ridiculous, given that he makes a lot of money and until this week, has not been terribly active in the world of "social change", contributing to charity or participating in helping to fix any social injustices until that was pointed out to him by the media. Suddenly, he's going to donate $1 million to "charity", whatever the hell that means. The only thing this guy could think of was disrespecting his national anthem, his country and the police officers who provide the very security he may need because of his ill-thought out protest. He's a hypocrite.

But I digress...(sorry...passionate subject. I was raised to be a participator, not a "sideline critic"...pun intended).

I am ok with the playing of an anthem at the beginning of sports events. What gets me upset is men who don't remove their hats during its playing. In fact, I resent men wearing baseball caps (or any hat) at a dinner table...whether its in a restaurant or at home. But I have to admit, I too was glad to see the anthem disappear from movie theatres and tv stations.
 
I remember what I thought was a requirement at my church where I went as a kid, that women had to have a head-covering in church in the 1960's. Women had to have a scarf, hat, or other covering in the 1960's. Turns out this was made a requirement in the 1917 Canon Law, but it was only a custom before then. This requirement started to fade after Vatican Council II. It was dropped in the 1983 vision of the Canon Law. See link.

For centuries, the church’s interpretation of Paul’s (admittedly confusing) words in 1 Corinthians 11 has been that women should cover their heads at Mass -- a tradition that was enshrined into church law in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Since the 1983 code revision did not address the head-covering canon (1262), veil wearing is no longer required.

Some mistakenly believe Paul is saying that “any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled” is the same as a prostitute (“having her head shaved”). Most biblical scholars today say that was not the practice in first-century Corinth. Even if it were, adopting practices from biblical times that have no meaning today makes little sense. Catholics are not the Amish. We use electricity, avail ourselves of modern medicine and walk around without bonnets and hats.

HeadCovering.jpg


Head covering turned out to be a thinly veiled patriarchy "request". Though there are those who still "demand" "their" women folk do as the men folk request.

See link.
From 1917 until 1983, the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law mandated that women wear veils or other head coverings. Prior to 1917, there was no such law, though wearing hats or veils was customary for women, according to Msgr. Charles Pope on the Archdiocese of Washington's website, who adds that although Church Law did not remove the hair covering mandate until 1983, many women had already chosen to forgo veils and hats at mass. Today there are no official rules regarding women’s hair covering, and most women do not wear veils or hats to mass. Wearing such head coverings is not considered improper, but rather a choice often made by more traditional parishioners. However, when attending a Traditional Latin Mass, women often wear a veil that covers the hair, according to Msgr. Pope. This veil can be either long or short, and may cover only part of the hair.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top