There is a bit of a differance between killing somones family, and then trying to claim the benefits from doing so, and having great great great great grand papi killing someone elses great great great great grand papi, or segregation, which afforded no benefits to anyone, just mistreatment of one group.
Its akin to a "son of sam" law in New York barring someone from profitting directly from the crimes they committed, especially, when those survivors are still alive and now are being asked to give up power.
The best way to look at it, Germany, not that long ago, went to war so as to become the dominant power of europe, they killed lots of people, now not to long after, they want to be the dominant power of europe because they have a bigger population then other nations, which is a direct result, of them having tried to be the dominant power not to long ago, its like if after first you do not succeed, try something different and then try again, but do not toss away the fruits of your previous labor.
So would the Germans argue. And the Blacks would claim benefits for "deprived opportunity to improve."
And from there, it would go nowhere.
I don't know how many exchanges it would take to admit that the past is the past, and nothing else can be done to change it. Non-quantifiable losses cannot be reparated, is what I'd think regarding the matter in question.