Every 2020 Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­den­tial can­di­date has had to answer whether they sup­port repa­ra­tions for descen­dants of enslaved peo­ple in the Unit­ed States. Many talk a good game. Sen. Eliz­a­beth War­ren (D‑Mass.) endorsed repa­ra­tions back in Feb­ru­ary, say­ing, ​“We must con­front the dark his­to­ry of slav­ery and gov­ern­ment-sanc­tioned dis­crim­i­na­tion … under­min­ing the abil­i­ty of Black fam­i­lies to build wealth in Amer­i­ca for generations.”

While Democratic presidential hopefuls seem far more likely to embrace reparations in 2019 than they were in 2016, they often go on to advocate something that is … not quite reparations.

This case has been made time and time again by pro­po­nents from the Nation­al Ex-Slave Mutu­al Relief, Boun­ty and Pen­sion Asso­ci­a­tion to the Nation­al Coali­tion of Blacks for Repa­ra­tions in Amer­i­ca, to the more recent Move­ment for Black Lives (M4BL) and Amer­i­can Descen­dants of Slaves (coa­lesc­ing around the Twit­ter hash­tag #ADOS). Although pro­po­nents don’t all agree on how and to whom repa­ra­tions should be dis­trib­uted, there is no doubt that chat­tel slav­ery and its byprod­ucts — Black Codes, debt peon­age, lynch mobs, land theft, Jim Crow, redlin­ing and mass incar­cer­a­tion — war­rant com­pen­sa­tion for Black Americans.

Most agree that the next step is a repa­ra­tions study bill like H.R. 40, which for­mer Rep. John Cony­ers (D‑Mich.) intro­duced each ses­sion from 1989 to 2017, only to have it die in com­mit­tee. Now, pres­i­den­tial hope­fuls are lin­ing up in support.

This is a very dif­fer­ent sto­ry from 2016, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) came out against repa­ra­tions and Hillary Clin­ton dodged the ques­tion. Also in 2016, Sen. Cory Book­er (D‑N.J.) told BYP100, a nation­al orga­ni­za­tion of young Black activists and orga­niz­ers (of which I am co-direc­tor), that he would nev­er sup­port repa­ra­tions leg­is­la­tion because it would be too divi­sive and unlike­ly to pass. Yet on April 9, Book­er intro­duced a repa­ra­tions study bill in the Sen­ate that mir­rors H.R. 40. Per­haps that shouldn’t be a sur­prise from the only descen­dant of enslaved African-Amer­i­cans in the race (the oth­er Black can­di­dates, Sen. Kamala Har­ris and Wayne Mes­sam, are of Jamaican ances­try), but it’s a big state­ment at a polit­i­cal­ly weighty moment.

So, what prompt­ed this polit­i­cal shift? A recent Busi­ness Insid­er poll found that, while 3 out of 4 white Amer­i­cans oppose repa­ra­tions, the idea has the sup­port of 54% of self-described lib­er­als, and 64% of Black Amer­i­cans — impor­tant Demo­c­ra­t­ic con­stituen­cies. Thanks to the work of Ta-Nehisi Coates, M4BL, #ADOS and oth­ers, the nation­al con­ver­sa­tion has changed, and the can­di­dates are reflect­ing that change.

While Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­den­tial hope­fuls seem far more like­ly to embrace repa­ra­tions in 2019 than they were in 2016, they often go on to advo­cate some­thing that is … not quite repa­ra­tions. As econ­o­mist Dar­rick Hamil­ton says, a repa­ra­tions pol­i­cy must include com­pen­sa­tion and an acknowl­edg­ment of spe­cif­ic wrongs. Yet Book­er has posit­ed his pro­posed baby bonds plan (which Hamil­ton helped work on) as a form of repa­ra­tions. Every U.S. new­born would get a $1,000 sav­ings account, with annu­al deposits of up to $2,000, depend­ing on fam­i­ly income, until they turn 18. The fact that chil­dren in pover­ty are dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly Black doesn’t make a pro­pos­al to give more mon­ey to poor chil­dren repa­ra­tions. It makes it good class-con­scious pol­i­cy that fails to explic­it­ly acknowl­edge and ful­ly atone for the impacts of slavery.

Sim­i­lar­ly, Har­ris said that she sup­ports repa­ra­tions and would sup­port H.R. 40. But, when asked about repa­ra­tions, she point­ed to her pro­posed LIFT Act, which would give a tax cred­it to all work­ing fam­i­lies. Although she esti­mates it would lift 60 per­cent of Black peo­ple out of pover­ty, the LIFT Act is still not reparations.

Sanders has alto­geth­er been reluc­tant to endorse repa­ra­tions as pol­i­cy. In a March appear­ance on The View, he said he didn’t sup­port repa­ra­tions if it meant ​“just writ­ing a check.” He lat­er added that he’d ​“of course” sign a repa­ra­tions bill if one crossed his desk as pres­i­dent — but doesn’t seem par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ed in putting in the work to get it there. While Sanders acknowl­edges wealth, health and envi­ron­men­tal dis­par­i­ties between Blacks and whites, he main­tains the need to focus on every­one, say­ing in response to a ques­tion about repa­ra­tions, ​“What we have got to do is pay atten­tion to dis­tressed com­mu­ni­ties — Black com­mu­ni­ties, Lati­no com­mu­ni­ties and white com­mu­ni­ties all over this coun­try.” This uncom­fort­ably mir­rors the log­ic of ​“all lives mat­ter,” which assumes that to acknowl­edge and address a par­tic­u­lar group’s unique dis­ad­van­tages and suf­fer­ing is to dis­count or ignore oth­ers’. But it has long been Sanders’ M.O. to be col­or­blind in his pol­i­cy pro­pos­als, focus­ing instead on class. Ask any Black farmer, domes­tic work­er or vet­er­an how they fared under the New Deal — a col­or­blind pol­i­cy meant to ​“lift all boats” that explic­it­ly exclud­ed them, at the behest of South­ern whites.

War­ren, for her part, has remained pos­i­tive but vague, declin­ing to say if she sup­ports finan­cial com­pen­sa­tion. She’s also main­tained that Native Amer­i­cans should be part of the con­ver­sa­tion, too. (I agree with War­ren that a repa­ra­tions con­ver­sa­tion is war­rant­ed for Native Amer­i­cans; I just think it’s a dif­fer­ent, sep­a­rate one.)

Mar­i­anne Williamson seems to be the most straight­for­ward and clear-head­ed in her stance on repa­ra­tions, say­ing she would allo­cate $200 to $500 bil­lion over a 20-year peri­od to ​“edu­ca­tion­al and eco­nom­ic projects” cho­sen by an ​“esteemed coun­cil of African Amer­i­can leaders.”

But a set of clear, con­crete repa­ra­tions pro­pos­als already exists in M4BL’s Vision for Black Lives, a detailed pol­i­cy plat­form pub­lished in 2016. Pass­ing H.R. 40 would allow us to weigh such pro­pos­als and move for­ward on implementation.

M4BL’s plat­form includes calls for resti­tu­tion for Black peo­ple, such as access to free life­time edu­ca­tion, and a uni­ver­sal basic income with a high­er rate for Black peo­ple for a set time. The plat­form also includes acknowl­edg­ment of wrongs through man­dat­ed pub­lic school cur­ricu­lums that crit­i­cal­ly exam­ine the impacts of colo­nial­ism and slav­ery, and cul­tur­al assets and mon­u­ments to com­mem­o­rate sites of Black col­lec­tive strug­gles and tri­umphs. These cul­tur­al repa­ra­tions are nec­es­sary to tell the sto­ries of African Amer­i­cans that have been untold, down­played or white­washed. They would serve as a per­ma­nent reminder of the white suprema­cist ter­ror to which Black Amer­i­cans were sub­ject­ed, while also hon­or­ing our resilience.

The plat­form demon­strates that repa­ra­tions isn’t just a check, nor is it a blan­ket pol­i­cy that ben­e­fits more Black peo­ple as hap­pen­stance. Repa­ra­tions is both back­ward-and for­ward-look­ing in its man­date to repair harm done. Whether can­di­dates embrace that prin­ci­ple will show how well they mea­sure up on their polit­i­cal will to make amends for the sake of Black futures.

For respons­es to this piece, read ​“Uni­ver­sal Pro­grams, Not Repa­ra­tions, Are Need­ed To Counter Racis­m’s Effects” and ​“Write Black Amer­i­cans a Check Already.”