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 would argue that at no point are cultures rigid and unchangeable. What has changed are different conceptual categories of identity. But while SOME of these things have become more rigid, some have become far more fluid. It's never linear.
Let's take the example of race: in the 17th century during the time of French settlement of the Americas, concepts of race did not exist, at least not in the modern sense that we think of them. We don't begin to see modern conceptions of "biological" race until the nineteenth century. Some of these categories were rigid but some became more flexible. Conceptions of "biological" race began to be increasingly systematized and categorized so that people were divided into more rigid categories of racial identities and hierarchies- however, conversely, the concept of whiteness in the United States became increasingly flexible. Whereas before you had an "Irish race" and an "italian race", now all of these groups are subsumed under a general White European category. Therefore, whiteness as a racial category is more fluid now, not rigid.
Culture and ethnicity are collectively constructed and are subject to change over time. For every example of increased rigidity of categories there are others of increased fluidity. You can't think of them as only going in one direction- they change and are molded according to changing conceptual categories of identity.
I'd like to ask about the premise. Was it really the case that passing was that easily done as compared today? In particular cases such as
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.
To what extent were such people actually seen as equal that we can show as distinct to a similar situation today?