i would like to remind you that i literally studied this at university. hollywood my ass.
what you are doing is genocide denial, and it is reprehensible.
both the "vast majority of non-hostile interactions" and the "most deaths caused by disease" are well known to be parts of a revisionist myth to whitewash the conquest.
specifically, the disease thing is a misapplication to the whole of the americas of a statistic specific to a region of mexico, and is simply not true when said of the americas as a whole. and even in that specific region of mexico it isn't as simple as "disease killed them". yes, many millions of people did die as a result of the epidemics, but the magnitude of the death toll was only possible as a result of the intentional actions of the colonisers, who made things worse with slavery, forced labour, and other atrocities.
the fact that there were many non-hostile interactions meanwhile does not in fact make the specific intentional genocide somehow not genocide. these murderous efforts were ongoing well into the 19th century, and involved both deportations, mass murders, disruptions of food supplies, sterilisation, cultural genocide, and others.
even someone your age should have heard of for example the trail of tears, and that's just one of the most well known individual events
if your ancestors in particular really are innocent of any individual wrongdoing (which would be great!, and there were some who were in fact innocent in that way), that doesn't somehow make the overall deprivations visited on the natives by the colonisers not genocidal.