Marines should not be
on any public trust lands

The Hawaiian Political Action Council of Hawaii protests the political compromise made on the Marines "giving up" their Makua landing. The military forces of the United States should not be using any public trust lands for military use.

These public trust lands are under the sovereign administration of the state of Hawaii and should be kept in public use, not military use for any reason. In 1964, Hawaii violated the States Administration Act by leasing Makua to the U.S. Army.

Richard P. Kinney

Admiral showed flexibility
in changing Makua plans

We commend Adm. Joseph Prueher for his courageous decision to switch the Marines' planned landing site from Makua Beach to Bellows.

Given the high state of emotions running through the Waianae community, Prueher made the right call, and his action was the appropriate response to native Hawaiian concerns.

However, let's not delude ourselves into believing the Marines' change of plans will in any way deter the hard-core activists who seize every opportunity to confront the military concerning access to areas throughout Hawaii used for essential operational readiness training.

Today, Makua Valley. A month or a year from now, Pohakuloa, Kahuku or Barking Sands.

Whether we choose to believe it or not, the military's presence in Hawaii is critically dependent upon its use of training sites where soldiers, sailors and Marines can be prepared to go in harm's way, to defend our freedom and to protect our national interests.

Absent that training capability in Hawaii, they will be back on the West Coast in a hurry.

Robert T. Guard
President
Honolulu Council
Navy League of the United States

Those who paid tribute
probably read tabloids

With respect to criticism about the role of the paparazzi vis a vis celebrities, which has reached a climax with Princess Di's unfortunate and untimely death, those who voice such criticism and, indeed, the public in general must recognize that the role is a result of a basic law of economics.

Without a market, publishers would not print the pictures. If they did not print them, the paparazzi could not sell them and, thus, would have no reason to take them. The public, therefore, must bear the ultimate responsibility for the phenomenon.

I know of no way to eliminate or even control the problem. Legislation would be no more effective than it has been against obscenity and pornography, and for the same reasons.

A boycott has been suggested, but they are noted for their failures. Boycotts are voluntary and all it takes is one act of noncompliance (and there is always at least one), and economics again renders the boycott ineffectual.

As a final and somewhat ironic observation, I would not be a bit surprised to learn that a good percentage of the people who paid tribute (floral or otherwise) to Diana were regular readers of the type of publications that support the paparazzi.

Louis H. Trigg
Pearl City

Goal of revolution
was annexation

The headline over A.A. Smyser's Aug. 12 column hit the nail on the head, "Annexation was better for Hawaiians." It was better for all of us, including the native Hawaiians.

The article, however, fails to give credit where it is due. Smyser forgets that the goal of the 1893 revolutionaries was annexation, not merely the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani. They wanted annexation because it would bring democracy to Hawaii, the right to vote for everyone of whatever racial background, and the U.S. citizenship that would guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, they created the Republic of Hawaii but that was only because President Cleveland's administration thwarted the annexation plans of the previous administration of Benjamin Harris, which had negotiated a treaty of annexation in 1893 with the revolutionaries' provisional government.

Cleveland withdrew the treaty from the U.S. Senate, where it was being considered. The revolutionaries knew they would have to wait for a new, more sympathetic administration to come to Washington.

The revolutionaries were realistic. They knew native Hawaiians would have voting power under annexation. But they had nothing against native Hawaiians. They spoke their language, worked beside them. It was the monarchy they didn't like.

Annexation and the right to vote were exactly what they wanted for everyone.

Thurston Twigg-Smith

---

Bishop Estate Archive

---

Same-sex archive

---

Want to write a letter to the editor? Let all Star-Bulletin readers know what you think. Please keep your letter to about 200 words. You can send it by e-mail to letters@starbulletin.com or you can fill in the online form for a faster response. Or print it and mail it to: Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802. Or fax it to: 523-8509. Always be sure to include your daytime phone number.