No, it says that Des Moines was incorporated in 1846, long after the French left. It was an Indian fort named after the river, which was coincidentally named by the French).
@markasol, Boise is a french word meaning trees, or woods. There was a Frenchman involved in the naming of the town, but it wasn't founded by the French.
The quiz isn't about who gave the city its current name! The city was founded by French settlers in 1749. The city-proper population is only 230,000, so that's why it's not on the list.
I grew up in Kingston, Ontario- there's still a little piece of the original French fort's wall to ogle at! But for the most part, the city's heritage is English/British Isles. By the 19th century, the French influence that founded the place was all but gone. All the other old landmarks we have are from the British-ruled days (ESPECIALLY Fort Henry. That one's indisputably British. Had a summer job as an interpreter there... red coats, "British grenadiers" for our march, "Built by the British empire after the war of 1812". etc.)
Being someone who used to live in the Iowa City area, I find the geography there to be relatively intuitive; Iowa City and Iowa Falls are on the Iowa River, which also happens to flow through Iowa County, Cedar Rapids and Cedar Falls are on the Cedar River, which happens to flow through Cedar County, Des Moines is on the Des Moines River, Sioux City is located at the confluence of the Missouri and the Big Sioux River, and the town Clear Lake is located conveniently next to... surprise surprise, Clear Lake.
I wonder what source you're using. The first Québec (province) city mentioned in your list is Trois-Rivières. Yet, Wikipedia lists 6 others before it (Laval [which should appear in the quiz], Gatineau, Longueuil, Sherbrooke, Saguenay and Lévis)...
And now, I just read a comment lower which might answer that issue. ("Laval has not been founded by the French (from France), but by French-canadians... Probably why it's not on that list.")
Not Pittsburgh? That grew out of Fort Duquesne after the British took it over and renamed it Fort Pitt. Or did you not count cities that were only forts at the time of French rule?
Arguably Toronto could also be included, but Fort Toronto was briefly abandoned before the area was re-settled as the city of York, so it's not a straight line from French founding to the modern day.
As a Quebecer, I can confirm there is indeed a city called Quebec in the province of the same name in Canada. It's the provincial capital and they have a fantastic winter festival, which I attended for the first time last February. Amazing restaurants and museums too ;)
Yes Quebecer is correct. Québécois/e in French. Québec is beautiful, peaceful, active and the cradle of French civilization in North America. Also a great place for alternative, progressive or hard rock and metal. Ask Metallica. For a mix of the band + Québec city, take a look : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rFZpZ2QPyw
There is no "American Continent". There is the continent of North America and the continent of South America. When I was in school the islands weren't considered part of any continent and some sources still say that, but on this site they are included as part of the North American continent. (So is Hawaii, but the reason is politically, not geographically.)
Maybe you'll learn something new, but there is no ground truth about what is a continent and how many continents there are. For example, I learnt that there were six continents: Asia, Europe, America, Africa, Oceania and Antarctica.
Continents traditionally include islands. Do you believe that Japan is not in Asia? That the UK is not in Europe? That Madagascar is not part of Africa?
There are still some sources which say the Caribbean islands are not part of North America or any other continent - even Wikipedia doesn't seem 100% certain whether to call them part of the continent or their own region. I wasn't referring to any other islands in my comment, and Japan was included with Asia even back in the Dark Ages when I was in school. We were also taught that Central America wasn't part of either North or South America but was its own region, as were many areas in the world. I think there are reasons to support either point of view but currently the winning argument classifies every country in the world as part of some continent either politically or geographically, no matter how far separated.
Islands that are part of the same tectonic plate as a continent are part of the continent. North America consists of the North American and Caribbean plates (the latter of which includes most of Honduras and all of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama). Central America is part of North America because it's connected to it by a wide area of a land (not an isthmus), and the Caribbean Islands are part of North America because they're on the same tectonic plate as Central America, which is part of North America.
The only way for Central America to not be part of North America is if it was connected by only an isthmus (like North and South America, or Africa and Asia), or a significant mountain range (like Europe and Asia). From a geologic perspective, Central America and the Caribbean islands are part of North America.
The African continent consists of the African and Somali plates. Being part of the Somali plate is why Madagascar, Seychelles, and Comoros are part of Africa.
Japan is divided by the Eurasian and North American plates. It's considered part of Asia due to closer proximity to continental Asia than continental North America.
The UK and Ireland are part of the Eurasian plate, which is why they're part of Europe.
And then there's case of Iceland, which straddles the North American and Eurasian plates. It's close to Greenland, but Greenland is an island. Iceland is closer to continental Europe than continental North America.
Um, nope! Laval was first settled by Europeans in 1636 by Jesuits who were granted a seigneury (a semi-feudal system of land tenure used in the North American French colonial empire). There was no such thing as a French Canadian in 1636!
Agriculture started in 1670, and the seigneury was taken over by François de Montmorency-Laval in 1675, after whom it is named. Whichever of these events you consider Laval's founding, it was founded by the French.
"originally founded" is a tricky phrase, but you could make an argument for Winnipeg as well. It certainly wasn't founded, in any sense, by the French crown, but the Red River Settlement (which became Winnipeg) was about 80% French-speaking Metis in 1870 (the year in which Manitoba became a province - at that time a small "postage stamp" surrounding Winnipeg). So, not the French crown, but a "French settlement"? Its city proper population would put it third on this list.
Most of those cities are doing so well nowadays economically and socially. Unemployment, poverty, violent crime levels. Is it just a concidence or some undeŕying cause?
But as its named after the same palace the Windsor's took their name from I guess its the same name.
Arguably Toronto could also be included, but Fort Toronto was briefly abandoned before the area was re-settled as the city of York, so it's not a straight line from French founding to the modern day.
Quebec City is a city in the province of Quebec and is the provincial capital as well. It is the 7th largest city in Canada.
The only way for Central America to not be part of North America is if it was connected by only an isthmus (like North and South America, or Africa and Asia), or a significant mountain range (like Europe and Asia). From a geologic perspective, Central America and the Caribbean islands are part of North America.
Japan is divided by the Eurasian and North American plates. It's considered part of Asia due to closer proximity to continental Asia than continental North America.
The UK and Ireland are part of the Eurasian plate, which is why they're part of Europe.
And then there's case of Iceland, which straddles the North American and Eurasian plates. It's close to Greenland, but Greenland is an island. Iceland is closer to continental Europe than continental North America.
Also, more recent data seems to give slightly higher numbers for Montréal and Québec at 1,942,042 and 585,485.
(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_municipalit%C3%A9s_du_Qu%C3%A9bec_par_population)
Probably why it's not on that list.
Agriculture started in 1670, and the seigneury was taken over by François de Montmorency-Laval in 1675, after whom it is named. Whichever of these events you consider Laval's founding, it was founded by the French.