I've linked an insightful article explaining how the concept of "reparations" has expanded to include lots of things that have little or no connection to actual compensation payments given to descendants of African-American slaves.
A few thoughts on this:
This is a new development. Back when I was still a student, I planned to write about why reparations are both more just (or at least less unjust) and more efficient as a tool for compensating historical injustices than affirmative action. In the course of doing research, I found a substantial academic literature on reparations - almost all of it focused on actual material compensation (the leading work is Boris Bittker's 1973 classic "The Case for Black Reparations"). So you can't blame people for thinking this is what "reparations" means when activists and politicians use the term. Until very recently, that's exactly what it meant to experts, as well as laypeople.
If what you want to advocate is some other policy (e.g. - criminal justice reform), or just greater awareness of historic injustice, you are well-advised to avoid the term "reparations." Most of these other policies are much more popular than reparations is.
There, of course, already has been extensive discussion and recognition of historical injustices in the US. More can and should be done. But much of the low-hanging fruit here has already been picked. Moreover, there is a big distinction between cases where the evidence is overwhelming (e.g. - the Confederates fought to preserve and extend slavery, not for some more noble cause), and those where there's room for legitimate disagreement (e.g. - how much the original Constitution was tainted by slavery).
While I am more sympathetic to "reparations" in the narrow sense of the term than many might expect, I am sceptical both of its justice under current US conditions (where it is virtually impossible to accurately identify victim and beneficiary classes of the relevant historic injustices), and of our political system's ability to administer it well. There are many more promising strategies for helping the minority poor (e.g. -zoning reform, abolishing the War on Drugs, etc) that do not create dangerous zero-sum games between ethnic groups, and are likely to benefit people of all races, and bolster economic growth. A policy of confiscating slaveowners' land and giving it to recently freed slaves might have made good sense in 1865. But that historical opportunity is irretrievably gone (if it was ever politically viable at all).