Here's the thing about reparations - it's supposed to compensate the recipient for what he/she supposedly lost as a result of the acts committed against them.
If we apply the concept to the descendants of African slaves, then we have to apply it rigorously and consistently, which means in part that we have to consider what their position would most likely have been if there had been no slave trade at all - that is, if their ancestors had remained in Africa instead of being brought to the New World.
On that score, most of them are not only not owed anything, they, in fact, owe something for the fact that their ancestors were brought to a place - the New World - where they, the descendants, would actually have a real chance to prosper and build wealth.
The fact of the matter is, those arguing for reparations are only applying a half-measure - they want to start measuring from the point at which their ancestors landed in the New World, and want us all to assume what they and their ancestors would have obtained if they had been free to start working for themselves at that point in time.
But that's not how it works. The only reason they are here now is because their ancestors were brought here as slaves, and those ancestors were slaves when they left the shores of Africa.
So, the only consistent way of measuring reparations is to start from the point immediately prior to the point in time when their ancestors were enslaved in Africa, and determine more or less what their economic well-being would have been if their ancestors had remained in Africa.
On that score, they aren't owed a g-d-damned thing.