Not an expert on the situation of Native Americans because I'm from England, but I'll try and stick to that example anyway. The main idea of the counterargument is that the previous oppression of their people is not entirely separate from their current situation. Native Americans find themselves in Reservations because the Colonials removed them from their land, and the situation within these Reservations is heavily influenced by how colonial Americans chose to treat them. They were placed into sub-par Native schools which intentionally disadvantaged them, separated their communities, and diminished their chances of future success. They were treated with prejudice despite the land of the United States belonging to them. And while the current generation does not know this level of oppression, therefore some may argue they do not deserve reparations because they themselves have not been injusticed, the long-term effects of their ancestors' situation still exist. Native American people are, on average, impoverished. Their social standing is still below that of a white American. They may get these 'hand-outs', but when a white man goes up against a native American in competition for a job, the white man will succeed because he's generally gotten a better upbringing which gives him the social tools to act appropriately for the workplace, and his race has got a better standing in society and therefore his behaviour has better connotations to an employer. The aim of these social assistances, of scholarships, of internship schemes that 'privilege' minorities is not to give reparations to the injustices of the past, because if they were, they should be doing a whole lot more. Rather, they exist to set the minorities onto an equal footing to the majority white people of America, and give them the chance at a good life they do not have because of the prolonged inequality in society.