t’s exactly the same. It’s the theory of collective guilt. That individuals can be viewed as guilty of real or perceived wrongs purely because they share some genetic characteristics with people who lived hundreds of years earlier
You compared violent and widespread discrimination caused by discrimination and accusation of deicide (and also other imagined things like blood libel, well poisoning etc) to reactions / prejudices caused by real, historical oppression that still has a real impact on certain groups today...
You may be right about claiming that the concept of collective guilt remains the same.
But the reasons for the assigned guilt (money lending vs genocide etc) and the consequences of it (the shoa vs public outage about cultural appropriation) are not comparable. Which is what you did...
or the money making activities of a few money lenders or blacksmiths. But a poor peasant Jew living on the Steppes or a child living in Hamburg or a teenage girl in Amsterdam or pregnant Jewish women in medieval London were to blame.
Which sounds like you're assigning guilt to the money lender and blacksmith.
Or the systematic oppression of plantation owners and slavers. But a poor woman living in Scotland, a child living in Denmark or a teenage girl living in Amsterdam were not to blame...
Do see what makes these two examples fundamentally different?