But one thing must be recognized: Past treatment of aboriginal populations by European settlers/colonists/pillagers/murderers (call us what you will) created a situation for these people where they have a great "need" for our continued help today.
To which I would only add, yes, provided that assertion is proved rather than merely asserted. (OH, and yes to SA's point that to need we have also to add consideration of expropriation. (of personal property anyway. I don't think it is either practical or theoretically correct to try to apply the idea to whole territories) After all, many surviving jews may not "need" the return of looted property but it is clearly right that they should have it. However )

Where I think the question becomes difficult is in a third possible reason for compensation, which we might call "unjust enrichment". I will never be persuaded that there is a person alive today who has themselves suffered because of the slave trade. Nor am I at all convinced that the dreadful state of most of Africa has even the remotest connection to events some two hundred years ago. However, it seems to me there is a case that could be made that certain countries did derive economic benefits from that trade, and that they still enjoy those benefits today. (As I say, this would have to be proved, and the second limb in particular strikes me as contentious, but it can't be dismissed out of hand).

That it seems to me would form a perfectly valid argument for compensation. To be claer, it would not be compensation for any particular individual, none of whom have themseves suffered, and you may take the view that in providing overseas aid the developed countries have already in effect paid that compensation, but in principle and subject to proof I think the argument is valid.