My answer is 'no', staunch individualist that I am. As I wrote last year:
It's philosophically suspect to personify a race and then attach moral attributes such as victimhood to this fictional entity. This point may well be controversial, but I don't think the category "Maori" (or "Pakeha" for that matter) actually refers to a meaningful entity. Persons can be harmed, groups cannot. The sentence "Maori were wronged" is only meaningful (and true) if it's understood as a rough translation of something like "Some Maori individuals were wronged". The corporate individual "Maori" does not itself exist. As such, trying to compensate this fictional entity does not make any sense. Nor does it make sense to compensate those Maori individuals who were not wronged.
None of this denies that we should be concerned about discrimination. If someone can't get a job just because of the colour of their skin, then that's obviously harmful to that individual (and terribly unjust). So if the group inequalities are caused by widespread discrimination, then that's a serious problem, as many individuals are being harmed.
But suppose (for the sake of argument) that no individuals are being harmed in this way. Suppose it's just a brute historical fact that black people tend to be disproportionately lower-class, and as such they face the exact same problems as everyone else in that economic class. If this were the case, would the racial inequality actually matter at all? If no individual is being treated unfairly (at least not on the basis of race; perhaps our economic system is inherently unfair to those in the lower classes) then where is the harm? So what if a poor individual is statistically more likely to be of a particular racial group? What's the significance of that?
Besides, why does that particular group matter? Why not group people according to their names, and worry when it turns out that Adams are worse off than Bobs? Isn't it obvious that we have no reason to care about the Adams group (as opposed to the individuals that compose it)?
Now, in practice it might happen that group inequalities reliably signal discrimination. So we could have instrumental reasons to care about it - I'm not denying that. But it seems to me that some leftists go further than this, and have an intrinsic concern about the welfare of minority groups (rather than just the welfare of individuals who happen to belong to those groups). That doesn't make much sense to me, so I'd be very interested to hear an explanation, if anyone cares to offer one.
I'd add that, in general, clumping people into arbitrary groups is awfully restricting and even counterproductive. You know, that whole multiplicity thing. Besides, it gets things backwards. I'm not a mere instance of the group "whites", I'm an individual who happens to have that race as one of my (many) properties. Characteristics are properties of individuals, not the other way around. So help people, not groups - only the former really matter. Further, people should be valued in themselves, not merely because of the groups they belong to. Anything less (i.e. 'tokenism') is insulting to their dignity as a person.
Update: A concrete example would probably make the point of this post clearer. Consider two scenarios, each of which contain 100 people, 50 of whom are well-off, and the other 50 are poorly off. Here are the two options:
1) Racial inequality: All the well-off people are white, and all the poorly off people are black.
2) No racial inequality: i.e. of the 50 black people, 25 are well-off and the other 25 are poorly off. Same goes for the 50 whites.
My question is: is scenario #2 any better than #1? (And if so, why?)
Or, suppose #1 was currently the case, but you could institute reforms that would bring about #2 instead. Would you approve those reforms? If you did, wouldn't that be tokenizing people, i.e. locating their value as a person within their racial/group affiliations, rather than in themselves as an individual?