I guess the question this raises is what you mean by "excuse," and what the opposite of it (condemn, I suppose?) means. What are your ethics about things that have happened in the past, as they relate to things we can or can't change now, as it all relates to justice or how we make moral decisions?

What is your attitude about structural or systematic injustice as it relates to compensatory justice? As in, are we looking for some sort of reparations for what has been done, or are we justifying action to ameliorate its follow-on effects that persist? These are different things.

What is your attitude about political dissent? How do individuals and decisions that individuals make relate to the state, or to powerful commercial interests? How does aggregating accountability for things work, especially over multiple generations?

Is it worth it to dissent and oppose injustice, if the moral agency of the individual is insignificant next to the moral agency of the state or of a private interest? Does broadly aggregating guilt disincentivize dissent against injustice (this I tend to think is a particularly useful question today, because it's a difficult one)?

As in, it seems you are intent in a uniform and across-the-board declaration that the United States of America - and everyone in it and every institution in it, except presumably for ones you will exclude based on some other criteria - is guilty of genocide - and that genocide guilt is a uniform moral stain that carries a uniform sort of consequence or uniform sort of judgement - shared equally by all who fall under the judgement.

What is that judgement? What does it mean? What is the weight of that condemnation?