Hi Assif et al,
I don't claim to have done a "logically complete" analysis. I wanted sites connected to the "activity" of "mass" Migration which led to where peoples are today. The Statue of Liberty, Aapravasi Ghat and Liverpool seemed to fit this concept nicely.
But, as always, new proposals stretch the orginal concept and some of these are "good ideas" and some are perhaps an "idea too far".
We need I think to avoid a situation where every colonial town/city and every place from or to which people have moved at some time during the history of mankind gets included.
But how to frame limits to the concept?
I personally don't see that the Babylonian expulsion of the Jews fits into the same category as the aforementioned 3 sites. I am not really sure about Lopé-Okanda either and even the Alhambra Decree was at the limits of my conception of what was meant.
Should/could we limit it to "modern", "mass" migration? But these 2 terms would still need defining. The Alhambra Decree from late 15C is, I guess, at the limits of "modern". I have also suggested that the emphasis should be on connections to the "activity" of migration rather than the result. i.e. a city "created" as a result of migration would not per se qualify unless there were some significant sites within the inscription related to the activity e.g. The Statue of Liberty. If we take, by comparison, Mexico City I know of nothing there which fits the bill (and indeed Mexico City is "mestizo" in a way which NYC isn't and hasn't really, to my knowledge, been a location which received "mass" migration).
Any other thoughts gratefully received!