It's rather schizophrenic.
We have far too many plonkers who like to claim that "Without colonisation, Māori would still be stone age cannibals" which ignores literally all of the recorded history of Māori interactions with Europeans.
(When Captain Cook turned up to "discover" New Zealand, he was surprised that the Māori he met wanted to trade food / cloth / pounamu for iron, especially nails, they were great for bird trapping and fishing hooks.)
Or the ol classic "Give us back the blankets and KFC, and we'll give you back your land" attempt at a joke.
In general, I think we need to get rid of the word “indigenous” altogether and find some other way to talk about situations like this. Nobody rose up out of the dirt, human migration and displacement has been a continual fact of human existence. Very often the people claimed to be “first” and therefore to have special privilege we have good reason to believe were not - and often “indigenous” peoples are shutting down archeological research because it contradicts their narratives. This is obviously bad for science, and it’s happened because we’ve privileged this narrative of colonials vs indigenous peoples rather than waves of migrations. The Māori are actually a rare example where the current evidence is they were “first”, but we also can’t expect any evidence that may be discovered to be taken seriously because of the political implications. Either way, I don’t believe and don’t accept that planting the Māori flag in the 1300s makes New Zealand theirs. It’s not. Current debates are simply the same old story of war and conquest, just pursued by other means since obviously the military route is unavailable to the modern Māori. That is, it’s simply the rationalization for a power struggle. The actual arguments are pontless: you can usually always go further back (eg, in America, why would we restore the Rushmore lands to the Lakota, who claim it, but who had very recently taken it by force?), and there is no longer any way to correct perceived injustices: all the “victims” are long dead and so are the “perpetrators” and in all cases there’s been intermixing in the time since and other immigrations. You’d simply be punishing people who had nothing to do with it and privileging people arbitrarily.
Ironically, modern Americans have skewed views in the opposite way of what you're suggesting. Pop culture and public school textbooks present the Indians as being far more peaceful, advanced and egalitarian than they were and the European settlers as being far more powerful and privileged than they were (they were after all, mostly refugees and peasants from oppressed minority groups in their native countries).
In the case of Hawaii specifically, the people historically lived in poverty with frequent wars and violence between rival tribal kings fighting to expand their kingdoms. As the 20th century brought Japanese imperialism expanding across the Pacific, those tribal leaders realized joining the USA was far better than being conquered by Japan and moved swiftly to do so. Today, the people there live far safer and richer lives with more freedom than their ancestors could have imagined, although wealth inequality, drugs and environmental harms remain serious issues on the islands.
People should not be expected to feel guilty for what their ancestors did
There is likely no piece of land anywhere in the entire world that is still currently held solely by the "original owners"
But for some reason only Western countries are being held to this ridiculous standard where we're supposed to constantly acknowledge that the countries are built on land that was colonized in the past, by people who are long dead
This is especially absurd given that many people living in these countries aren't even descended from the original colonists anymore. They've immigrated long after the countries were established
