What you said about the Canadian situation is obviously quite true; French is an official language and is the prevalent one in Quebec and parts of New Brunswick. If I had been talking about Canada in the earlier posts, my comments would have been altered accordingly. I have no problem with the position of the French language in Canada.
As to why I was offended at being called an "American nationalist", there were essentially two reasons for this. The first was just the "sniping" quality of the statement. When I said "give me something to respond to" I meant that I think this might be an interesting area to discuss, but I think we should discuss it fully, rather than in pot shots at each other. The second was that American nationalism tends to have a couple of features which distinguish it from the nationalisms elsewhere, and I personally think these distinguishing traits are negative. I am a nationalist, but one of the "old school" so to speak.
As to your summary of my earlier comments, it's generally correct (although a bit extreme). You find those positions offensive; fair enough. I would be perfectly happy to discuss them.
I'll try to hit one point on the head right away that you hinted at earlier, and is of course quite a common position, namely that America is an "immigrant country" or that "the only true natives here are the First Nations". Neither of these statements is really true. They rest on an unacceptable ambiguity in the words "native" and "immigration". For the descendants of the original American settlers to not be considered native, you have to say that the descendants of immigrants are themselves immigrants. But, this criterion disqualifies the first nations too. They immigrated to the Americas as well; they just did it longer ago. The first nations came from Asia and earlier; the colonists came from Europe and later, but both groups came. Another problem with denying the descendants of colonists the title "native" is that it raises the obvious question of what is these people's native country. In my case, my ancestors are English and French; does that make either of those places my native country? I've never even been to England or France! If I did what to go to either of those places and stay, I would be treated (rightfully) as an immigrant. The essential problem with this view is that it ignores the fact that it is YOUR native country that is in question, not your ancestors. Wherever you are born and grow up is your native country, no matter how it came about that you are there.
Also, America (and Canada) weren't founded by "immigrants" in the modern sense of the term. In modern times, an immigrant comes to a country and lives there with people, following their laws and so forth. The colonists weren't like this; they were conquerors. They didn't immigrate to a place; they took it over. Whatever the moral implications of this (and I find it as morally blameworthy as the next person), it is what happened, and the descendants of these colonists aren't guilty for it. An English descendant living in the Americas is like a Turk in Anatolia or a Russian in the Eastern part of the federation, rather than like a new immigrant today. This is a very relevant difference, but I'll leave it there for now, mainly because I don't actually know if anyone's interested in discussing this point.