what I mean by this : in the 17th and 18th centuries it was very common for different people to assimilate into a completely different culture than the one in which they were born, and they would become a recognized member generally by others around them. In New France this happened a lot with Natives becoming "Frenchified" and being seen as natural French subjects, while French settlers could run into the woods and "go Native" and be adopted into a nation and be seen as an equal member of the nation. In New Spain, castas were supposed to be rigid but some people could get their casta changed, switching from Mestizo to Criollo, to give one example. This used to be a more common thing but generally is no longer. My question is, when did it change? When did cultures and ethnicities become rigid, so that whatever culture you are born into, you are "stuck with" in essence?

edit with clarification for everyone:

clarification of premise:

In the 17th and 18th centuries, French Canadian Voyageurs and coureurs des bois could and often would become members of different First Nations, most notably in the Pays d'en haut (today's Great Lakes). However this was not limited to this area, for example in Acadia, many Acadians could go into Mi'kmaq communities and "become Mi'kmaq", and vice versa. Many authorities remarked on how the Natives were not becoming "Frenchified" as often as the reverse was happening ("Le Français devient sauvage avant que le sauvage ne devienne Français" - the French are turning Indian before the Indians turn French) and they were accepted rather well, First Nations did view them as equal to their own members once they were successfully adopted into the Nation - sometimes this was done by force, however, Radisson as an example. Another famous example would be Madame Montour, who was born as a mixed French/Algonquin woman, and later ended up adopted into the Oneida nation, she became, literally an Oneida woman, though she was not born as such. Here is a quote from Carolyn Podruchny's "Making the Voyageur World", showing how French Canadians would change identity and culture: "The Ritual baptism at points of geographic distinction, for example, marked symbolic transformations from 'habitant' to 'voyageur', from 'pork-eater' to 'north-man', and from 'north-man' to 'athabaska man'." (304), "What I found was a complex and diverse labour force negotiating it's identity in the margins between well established cultures both European and Aboriginal." (page 308).

Today however, if a white person were to try to "become native"... it would not work out quite so well. They would be ridiculed by almost everyone. Even within nations that generally accept non native members via adoption, it is still a huge issue within Indigenous circles, the blood issue (Cherokee Freedmen). Often the same is true outside there as well, with many people being unable, or seeimingly unable, to seperate one's ethnic heritage from one's contemporary culture - Italian Americans often identifying as Italian, rather than American, or even as Italian-Americans as another example (also, Irish-Americans).

What I am wondering, is when, precisely things changed. When did the French Canadian stop being able to "become Indian", with no one blinking an eye? When did it become rigid and unchangable?

I see this all the time. Is this idea always true? For example are there any cases where the historiography is shaped by a 'losing side'.

To elaborate further can we break this down based on socio-economic classes and countries?

Anyone who took a basic K-12 American history class or saw Ken Burns' The Civil War knows that the slave-owning classes utilized southern identity and pride to convince the lower classes of the secession and civil war causes; they painted the northern policies and actions as being about attacking the southern way of life, not slavery. Question is though, why and how did the southern identity come to be? Why was it seen as so thoroughly different from the North? And why weren't there any further geographical/cultural subdivisions of such importance in pre-civil war U.S.?

I was reading a thing about how in the 1800s the US military went out to kill large numbers of American Bison populations as a way to drive Indians off their lands (through starvation).

That sounds like something Stalin would have done. I'd imagine that there are other, similar instances too.

Is this an act of genocide? An eye of the beholder question? Something else?

Though Jesus had no children, we know his brothers and sisters did. Who is the last traceable descendant? Apparently some unnamed ones challenged Pope Silvester I.

(I am an Atheist)

[deleted]

I'm sure it's obvious, but I'm talking about the United States.

I really like the the movie Caligula, directed by Tinto Brass, starring Malcolm McDowell. What are some differences between the film's portrayal of Caligula and the real person?

(I forgot to add the question mark in the title.)

[deleted]

Hi there,

Every Italian I have been to has had a plaque (usually on the side of town hall) of their vote to unify Italy under Victor Emmanuel.

I spent the day in San Marino today and I was curious if they were offered the option for a vote to join the unified Italy.

If so, are their records of the voting outcome?

If not, can you elaborate as to why?

After the Holocaust, Jews across the world fled to Israel and founded a new nation (albeit on land that wasn't empty).

Was there ever (or is there, I suppose) a movement to do the same for African Americans? To return to Africa and build a new nation?

[deleted]

Was just curious to know how this came into existence.

The text of the post reads "Mother Teresa told sick people they must suffer like Christ on the cross and reject any treatment, yet went into intensive hospital care the moment she fell ill"

And the top comments claim that St. MT bilked money from donors without giving any to the poor and that she enjoyed seeing people suffer.

Are any of those claims true?