Consider the current NE Patriots. By the time the next season begins, perhaps none of the current players will have been on the team when they won their last Super Bowl or any of their last championships. But they will still have a sense that--and we will act as if--they are in some way connected to those past winning teams. Similarly, it could be that the team loses the first few games, replaces literally all of its players by halfway through the season, and then starts winning. But they will still feel burdened by those first few loses. We attach reputations, records, and so on, to the team. Given the nature of the game, we have reason to do so.
Similarly, part of what it is to be a fan of the Boston Red Sox is to dislike the New York Yankees. But there's something odd about that. After all, three seasons from now, the teams will both have entirely new players. Bostonians will dislike the players on the 2024 Yankees simply for joining the Yankees, even though those players have no history of thwarting Boston's goals. Imagine that halfway through the 2024 season, Boston and New York traded their entire teams--they literally switch their entire rosters. Bostonians will now root for the all the players who were, as of a day ago, all Yankees, and they will oppose the people who were, as of a day ago, all Red Sox.
Early societies treat entire groups of people, including families, clans, tribes, nations, and races as being like members of the team. If someone on your tribe killed someone on my tribe, we might decide to exact revenge not by killing you in particular, but by killing someone on your tribe. If your grandfather killed my grandfather, then I regard you as inheriting his sins. I might distrust you or even want to kill you, too, or think you owe me compensation. If people from Fire Nation attacked the people in the Earth Kingdom 100 years ago, people in the Earth Kingdom today might want to kill people in the Fire Nation today. And so on.
I regard all such attitudes as "barbarian pseudo-ethics" I say "barbarian" because it is a pejorative term indicating uncivilized, brutish attitudes and behaviors. I say "pseudo-ethics" because these principles function like a moral code but at the same time are fundamentally a rejection of ethics.
A basic principle of ethics is that a person cannot be held morally responsible for something that person did not do or had no control over. (We rationally hold people responsible for others' actions only when that person exerts power over them, for instance, a supervisor who can control employees in her division. We don't hold the supervisor at Starbucks responsible for what happens at Tim Hortons in another town.) What you ancestors did has no bearing on your moral character or responsibility. Further, what people who sort of look like you but aren't really related to you did in the past has no bearing on your character or responsibility.
None of this is to deny collective wrong-doing. The people who, say, voted for Trump are responsible for him being elected. But they are responsible because they actively participated in electing him, even though any of them could have abstained with no effect. They aren't responsible because they are members of arbitrary groupings of people, and some other members of that group did something.
Unfortunately, barbarian pseudo-ethics is alive and well, despite the Enlightenment's attempt to banish it. Rather people seeing each other as individual people, they tend to put each other into groups based upon their birth, and then hold them responsible for things others in those arbitrary groupings did.
It's perhaps not surprising that the critical theory crowd, which rejects the Enlightenment's objectivist epistemology in favor of barbaric subjectivism and authoritarian epistemologies, also rejects the Enlightenment's individualistic ethics in favor of barbarian pseudo-ethics. They believe bad things for bad reasons, and act badly as a result.