Here is the thing I don't understand-- well, actually I do, but I'll state the question rhetorically anyway:

If the actions of distant ancestors of one group mean that their progenitors should be robbed-- or worse-- in perpetuity, to pay for "affirmative action" and gunpoint-driven "welfare" programs for the descendants of the victims, then why is that logic not applied in all cases?

Just in South Africa, I've learned that two and a half million blacks killed each other. In addition, Muslims were selling black slaves, en masse, into the Middle East. I've also learned that the white Boers were betrayed and savagely attacked by the black Zulus. Then, the white British attacked the white Afrikaners, throwing their women and children into the kinds of concentration camps that later inspired the Nazis in Germany.

I don't see any political movements to throw Zulus off their land in order to set up a "State of Afrikaners"-- although, the whites sort of subsequently did that themselves, and it was condemned! I never hear the British referred to in the same light as Germany's Nazis. I've never once heard a horror story involving the brutal Muslim slave traders. In fact, I only even heard about any of this by listening to a heterodox podcast, followed by some corroborative Wikipedia digging. Why was I not taught any of this in elementary school?

And now, I'll answer my own question: historical events that fit the Marxist or Cultural Marxist agendas-- so, blacks being killed by whites, or non-Christian persecution-- should be paid utmost attention to, and repeated ad nauseum to young school children. While blacks killing each other, tales of Muslim slave traders, or Christians being murdered, need to be swept under the rug.