Government-led reconciliation action matches imperfectly the group that caused historical harm

Evidence

The second option is best exemplified by the Sorry Day campaign. The third option is likely to be more satisfactory in terms of making real progress, but it creates procedural and psychological difficulties such as those discussed earlier. These occur, in part, because the group that is potentially taking the action to repair the harm done (the Australian government) is not precisely aligned with the group that initially caused the harm (various groups of settlers). — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 802

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Collective responsibility is contested when present members lack ancestral connection to past harm — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 798; Internal reconciliation forces a subgroup to act through superordinate institutions it dominates — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 801; Dominant groups that lose status develop intense resentments that fuel political conflict — W. David Marx, Status and Culture: How Our Desire for…, 103

Broader Connections

• Collective responsibility is contested when present members lack ancestral connection to past harm #qualifies (0.78) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 798
• Internal reconciliation forces a subgroup to act through superordinate institutions it dominates #complicates (0.75) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 801
• Dominant groups that lose status develop intense resentments that fuel political conflict #qualifies (0.71) — W. David Marx, Status and Culture, 103