There must be no confusion between the Creole community and Creolity. Creolity is different cultural roots which, over time, have consolidated to form a whole, a culture in its own right. Indentured servitude and the discord of trade with the outside world behind the closed doors of colonisation have helped and will further contribute to the structuring of Creolity (Ghanty, 2005, p. 4).
'What is the Creole identity? An eating habit? A certain type of behaviour? Some slave blood from Africa? If it is humour, everyday family life, spicy food or music, are we not all Creoles in Mauritius?' (Bhujun, 2006).  
The Creole [...] is a European, African or mulatto born outside his ancestral land and adapted to his homeland [...] By extension, a Creole is anyone who was born far from his ancestral land or any person who comes into contact with other cultures to create different configurations of the culture(s) of origin (Torabully, 2007).  
The Creole identity did not take full hold. The process of identity reconstruction within the Creole community of Mauritius took place through the clearance of Africanity and its subsequent revival (Jocelyn Chan Low). This revival was accompanied by the creation of the Nelson Mandela Centre for African Culture in Port Louis, aimed at encouraging direct contact between Creoles and Africans, which remained infrequent.  
Since the 1990s, the meaning of the word 'Creole' has evolved; it now fully incorporates Africanity as much as it does the hybridity of the Creole identity. The way in which Creoles and Indians have worked with hybridity, within a composite culture, has encouraged a new way of looking at representations of the body and the person, thus contributing to modernity. Mauritius became 'an original mix of Creole and ancestral society' (Hookoomsing, 2003, p. 31). Françoise Lionnet adopts the term 'cosmopolitical Creole', criticizing the use of the term 'creolization' although this is a popular dynamic and cosmopolitanism when it comes to elite culture (Lionnet, 2012).