I would also mention that you appear to be shoving the film into an interpretative box you have made for it, where you are making the humans into settlers and the gods into indigenous natives. This is kinda problematic in itself, indigenous people are people - people who destroy ecologies as well. They are not mystical godlike savages tied to the land, although that was a common settler conception of them.

If we are going to say anything in the film is representative of indigenous people then it would Ashataki’s tribe from the beginning of the film. The gods are not analogous to colonized people, they are analogous to nature and the land itself.

(I prefer the interpretation that Ashataki’s tribe being at the chronological beginning of the film is not a coincidence. The timeline of the film pushes our hero from pre-feudal tribe, to feudal farms and towns, to a mercantile and modern humanist industrial foundry, to ecological cataclysm via the captain of industry’s greed, mass destruction of the modern city and finally the slow restoration and stewardship of nature in a synthesis of modernity and a people more connected to nature.)

The “reparations” you believe that the gods deserve arises from your ideological blinders. The world is not a person, it doesn’t “deserve” anything or have “rights”. It just is, it exists by its own savage laws - and uses those savage laws to bring about its own restoration and purge the humans from the land. It is capable of protecting itself through its avatar god. It’s not a deus ex Machina that the land was restored, it’s the culmination of the themes of the entire film