Well, there’s no universal definition of “indigenous peoples”, but let’s try this one out:
Drawing on these, a contemporary working definition of “indigenous peoples” has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either:
* before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or
* alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or
* independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,
and who furthermore
* have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.
Given the rampant interbreeding with other races, you can certainly not claim that modern day part-kanaka maoli “remain differentiated” from their peers, so on that item the answer is clearly NO.