For the record, I lean toward the theory that creating balance will eventually return the scale is equilibrium, and that is probably better in the long term than giving the scale a push to get to equilibrium faster.

However, your analogy doesn't make sense. No individual should be explicitly punished for the sins of an individual ancestor. But if some huge group of ancestors commits an atrocity against a target group that has effects lasting generations, to the point where that target group still suffers the ancestral hatreds to this day (just look at the dead posts in this thread - on Hacker News), then it's not exactly an outrageous occurrence if the society gives some boon to the targeted group. Of course, society is a zero-sum game, and a boon to any is a burden on others, but that's how the entire system works - there's no getting away from the physics of that. But to say the other groups are "punished" with no further context implies something worse than that. There's no way to compare this scenario with an individual person committing a crime against another.

That sounds reasonable on the surface, but actually it's even worse.

Groups are just sets of individuals. And "boons" are punishment if they are forced.

So to adjust the example: a group of people who look like my father killed a group of people who look like your father. What is my punishment?

It sounds absurd because group identity is absurd.

Are there individuals who need help? Let's help them. We do already, but we can do more.

Are there individuals committing crimes of real violence? Let's stop them.

That's not absurd at all.

If they used that murder to reap profit & you inherited that profit, you could pay some of it back