Europe

I think you're confusing rich people with common people.

Those making money in the "homeland" from colonization weren't the peasants.

I live in a country - Portugal - which when I was born was still a Fascist dictatorship and still had colonies in Africa and back then the vast majority of the population in the country was incredibly poor (to the point of the country getting food help from The Netherlands) but 7 families were incredibly rich (and the white landowners in the "colonies" exploiting the locals and the land they had stolen from them too were rich).

Somehow I don't think my mother (who walked to school barefoot in Winter as a child) was getting any of that "stolen wealth".

Blaming the entire nation and everybody in it for colonization done by the country during times of autocracy is just how the wealthy who inherited wealth their ancestors amassed by exploiting people in faraway lands ditch the blame into the sons and daughters of the people who back then were poor and powerless.

Compensate the actual people who suffered (or their close descendands if still alive), not the parasites in power in lands which happenned to have been occupied, and do it with the money of those who gained from their suffering (or the inherited money from close descendants), not the usual Identity Politics bullshit of diluting the blame of a few by blaming whole nations and ethnicities to de facto benefit people who were not victims or descendents of victims but instead just happen to share nationality or ethnicity with the victims, all the while avoiding like crazy talking about the wealthy who were the ones amassing most if not all of the upsides of the pillaging.

I do acknowledge that, but a society is made up of individuals. And none of those individuals is responsible for the crimes committed by their ancestors. Guilt is not passed down through generations. I do not believe that people living in former colonies are entitled to reparations because my ancestors committed crimes against their ancestors, even if those crimes still have repercussions in the current day.

If colonialism has made those countries poor, then they should have gotten rich once they were no longer part of a colonial empire. At the same time countries which had large colonial empires should have gotten poor, when loosing their empire.

What we mostly see is that this is not the case. Portugal got rich after its empire collapsed. Spain was about as rich as its former colonies for a long time. France and the UK did not collapse after loosing their colonies. There are rich countries, which never did have many colonies or only small ones for a limited time, like Germany, Scandinavia or Switzerland. You also have Oman, which did not get rich despite having had colonies. We also have Africa, which only has Botswana as a country genuinly benefiting from no longer being a colony. However that was after diamonds were found inside Botswana shortly after independence. Funnily enough Botswana also asked to be a colony. Everybody else more or less failed to get rich.

That is not to say that colonial empires should not pay for crimes they comitted or return stolen artifacts. The benefits of colonialism were mostly going to a small elite in the colonial countries and cost the states a lot of resources, which in many cases would have been better spend on other projects.

Does this hold true even if these countries (often times the population at large, not just the leadership) are avid supporters of imperialism and brutal occupations?

That's a fair point.