This all happened in 1898 or something, didn't it?
And Hawaiian Kingdom was itself not even 100 years old at the time, itself being the product of a (native) military conqueror who took over the Hawaiian islands and displaced whatever local societies there were.
I just reject the premise that colonialism was bad and that we are automatically obligated to preserve, respect or maintain these ancient cultures just because they...existed?
Modern democratic societies are healthier, wealthier, safer, more just, and more equal than the native cultures they replaced. We shouldn't restrain our progress because old superstitions mean someone doesn't want us building scientific instruments on top of some dirt. This is a value judgement and I'm not afraid to make it.
Obviously I feel pretty strongly about this. But I don't know how to convince you that colonialism is bad. But on the off-chance you're willing to be convinced, read on.
The unification of Hawaii was a military conquest by the natives from one Hawaiian island onto the other Hawaiian islands. Those islands were settled by Polynesians about 1000 years previously, and the culture was pretty uniform, even as it was a collection of kingdoms. This is less "Norway conquers England" and more "unification of England".
Moreover, the unification of Hawaii happened 17 years after first contact with Europeans, and the kingdom era basically coincided with the era of whalers, foreign plantations, and foreign immigration. Which makes the "unification of England" metaphor more apt, when you consider the role Scandinavian immigrants/colonists played in the unification of England.
To be super clear, the issue with colonization has never EVER been "we should let less advanced cultures develop at their own rate". The issue is that whatever development occurs does not happen in collaboration with the "less advanced" culture. Its always "I have guns, so therefore I have superior moral knowledge in all things". Its barring natives from voting, because they don't own enough property, when the concept of property ownership is less than a century old in the "less advanced" culture (and was forced on them by the "more advanced" culture). Its forcibly removing children from their families and even barring them from speaking the language of their parents [0].
0. https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/06/23/congressional-heari...
The Hawaiian Kingdom fell to a coup, because some white guy thought that the native Hawaiians were too primitive to govern themselves, and that that was why he and his friends were not allowed to setup sugar plantations on the scale they wanted to, and to own the land outright. The story of the US annexing Hawaii is unambiguously the story of a colonizer telling the indigenous people that their priorities (whatever they are) are childish or superstitions or what have you. And when the indigenous people didn't immediately acquiesce to the colonizer's (patronizing) demands, the colonizer resorted to violence. The queen makes it explicit in her document of surrender that the only reason she is doing so is because of the explicit threats of violence made by (all white) insurgents and the US Navy.
There's some implied sexism thrown in for good measure, although it's not clear to what extent it mattered that the white insurgents overthrew a queen and not a king.
Dismissing, I dunno, the Sarmations as a "defunct society" is one thing. Whatever society destroyed them is almost certainly destroyed themselves. But there are people alive today whose grandparents remember living in the independent Kingdom of Hawaii. The conquerer of Hawaii is very much still alive and kicking.