Source: https://www.sociostudies.org/journal/articles/250570/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:47:27+00:00

Document:
The evidence shows that the Tanzanian and Zambian university students representing the African by origin overwhelming majority of the countries' population are generally tolerant towards their compatriots of the non-African (European and South Asian) origins. However, the evidence also gives reason to argue that the level of tolerance among the Zambian students is higher than among Tanzanian. The examination of a number of factors that supposedly could lead to the Zambian educated youth's higher level of tolerance has shown that the most significant among them are those related to the two nations' history since the pre-colonial time, the memory of it, and the use and abuse of this memory by the post-colonial states. From the historical point of view the greatest essential difference between the two cases lies in the existence since pre-colonial time of the Swahili culture and language and of the minimal number of expansionist centralized polities on the contemporary state's territory as the background for autochthonous peoples' unity in Tanzania and lack of such a background in pre-colonial Zambia.
In the course of research a questionnaire was distributed among students of the largest, most prestigious and definitely the best higher education institutions of the two countries – the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania and the University of Zambia based in the capital city of Lusaka (see Appendix 1). The students represented a great variety of the Universities schools and departments, from Engineering to Sciences to Social Sciences to the Humanities. In Zambia the questionnaire was available in English, the country's only official language and the language of instruction at the University, while in Tanzania it was offered in English and Swahili (both of which are used in many spheres of life, including education). As a result, 167 questionnaires were filled in by the students of the University of Dar es Salaam and 146 by their peers from the University of Zambia (although, as it usually happens, not all the respondents answered all the questions). The questionnaires were processed and finally the evidence they contain took the form of three electronic databases: Tanzanian, Zambian, and integral. Their statistical analysis via the IBM SPSS Statistics 19.0 computer program paved the way for qualitative interpretation of the collected evidence.
Besides, structured interviews with university teachers, student organizations activists, etc. were conducted – 21 in Dar es Salaam and 15 in Lusaka (see Appendix 2). As it could be predicted safely, their transcripts turned out very helpful in clarifying many points of our interest.
Finally, some evidence and conclusions of the research I conducted in the 2000s on the cultural stereotypes and intercultural relations in different strata of the Tanzanian society have also appeared relevant for this study.
My central argument is that the difference in the young educated Africans' attitude to the colonialism-born minorities in contemporary Tanzania and Zambia can be explained by significant dissimilarities in their real pre-colonial and colonial historical fortunes, on the one hand, and in the ways history is used and abused in the post-colonial state ideologies, on the other. Indeed, although our research shows that in general the attitude of both Tanzanian and Zambian students to their European and South Asian compatriots is tolerant (what is important to make clear at the outset), it is evident that some of them do not perceive these minorities as groups of people who, notwithstanding cultural differences, share the same basic national values and who live for the benefit of the same country: four per cent of Tanzanian and one per cent of Zambian students expressed negative attitude to Europeans and fourteen and four per cent, respectively, to Indians. So, on the one hand, the students' attitude to the two migrant communities is not completely the same (it is better to Europeans than to Indians in both cases, what is typical not only for students but for the local population in general [Bondarenko 2008]), while on the other hand, the attitude to each of the communities is better among Zambian students than among Tanzanian. The fact that South Asians are not always treated cordially by native Africans is quite well-known to Africanists (see, e.g., Bharati 1972: 149ff.; Brown 2006: 112–148; Bondarenko 2008; Usov 2010: 171–181), so the primary aim of the present paper is to offer an explanation to the previously undiscovered (as to my knowledge) fact that Zambian students are more tolerant to the non-African diasporas than Tanzanian, in particular that they treat better both the Europeans and South Asians. This is reflected vividly in the collected evidence – the respondents' answers to not only the direct question about their attitude to the minorities, but also to such questions as: ‘What is your attitude to the culture of the Tanzanian/Zambian Europeans/Indians’, ‘How would you react if your child marries a Tanzanian/Zambian European/Indian?’, ‘Have you any friends among Tanzanian/Zambian Europeans/Indians?’, and ‘Do you think that Tanzanian/Zambian Europeans/Indians are well integrated in the Tanzanian/Zambian society?’.
In view of these results, it may seem illogical that there are more Tanzanians than Zambians (35 vs. 21 per cent) who believe that there is really a single national culture in their country, formed and shared by all the respective countries nationals, including the European and South Asian minorities. However, the higher percent of positive answers to the question about the existence of the integrated national culture among Tanzanian respondents is interrelated with the smaller percent of those who preferred to answer that in terms of culture their country is a mere composition of separate ethnic cultures (45 vs. 59 per cent for the Zambians) than of those who agree with the argument – in fact, most unpleasant for diasporas – that a single autochthonous culture opposes the cultures of migrants: 20 per cent in each state. In other words, this result indicates that the originally non-African migrants' inclusion in or exclusion from the Tanzanian or Zambian nation is determined by factors that are more general and inclusive than those related just to the interactions between, and mutual attitudes of the originally African and non-African citizens of the two states. One can soundly approach the situation with the non-African diasporas and discuss it as a very particular but yet a special case of a more general problem of formation of nations as supraethnic civil communities based on common cultures, especially on shared systems of values and national mythologies.
Thus, the fundamental and vitally important for African countries problem of national unity sets a context for our subsequent discussion of the Tanzanian and Zambian students' attitude to the European and South Asian minorities in their states. In fact, the whole socio-cultural ‘space’ of the discussion, from the very appearance of migrants from Europe and South Asia in what is today Tanzania and Zambia, to the existence of universities and students there, to the problem of nation-building in the polities once created violently and artificially, is rooted directly in the colonial past. However, as it will become clear from what follows, the account of both the pre-colonial legacy of the Tanzanian and Zambian peoples and the manipulations with their historical memory by the postcolonial states are not less important for understanding of the contemporary situation, including providing an explanation of the similarities in and differences between the attitude of the Tanzanian and Zambian university students to their compatriots of the European and South Asian origins.
The analysis has revealed that a number of factors which, according to initial suppositions, could influence the students' attitude to the European and South Asian minorities in reality are of minor importance. These factors are the respondents' religious affiliation (Christian or Muslim), coming from a larger or smaller ethnic groups and settlements, and perhaps, financial situation. The factor that does matter is the degree of secularism/religiosity. For testing the relation between it and the respondents' tolerance/xenophobia, I have compared answers to the question ‘How often do you pray?’ (those not observing the dogma are regarded as people with more secularized consciousness than those who observe) with generalization of answers to the question about the attitude to European and Indian Tanzanians and Zambians. Basing on the result of the comparison, it can be argued that secularization (to some extent also meaning Europeanization, especially in Africa), related to the education growth, plays a ambiguous role in shaping the Africans' attitude toward the originally non-African minorities: while it promotes their better attitude to the Europeans (what can be regarded as a factor of the Africans' general preference of Europeans to Indians, specific for this social layer), it also leads to some decline in general ethno-racial tolerance. Less secularized respondents are more tolerant; of the Zambian and Tanzanian students that pray according to the dogmas only one per cent labeled as ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ their attitude to the Europeans and five per cent to the Indians while the respective figures for the less religious students are four and fourteen per cent. My previous research (Bondarenko 2008, 2010) has also revealed that the secularization growth, related directly to raising the standard of education, leads to increase in interreligious and decrease in interethnic and interracial tolerance, as secularization makes religious commonalities and differences less important for a person by transferring his/her self- and others identification center of gravity from the transcendental and universalistic values of monotheistic religions to the ‘terrestrial’ and local ethno-cultural values.
In the meantime, I have expected less tolerance on the side of the respondents most attached to traditional culture and its values. As the indicators of the ‘degree of traditionalism’ I have considered answers to several questions, especially to the one reflecting the very basis and key value of traditional African world outlook and religion (e.g., Fortes 1966; Bondarenko 1996; Grinker et al. 2010: 283–322): ‘Do you think that it is necessary to make offerings to the deceased ancestors' spirits, at least on important occasions?’ As it could be predicted, there really are quite traditionally oriented young intellectuals but they are few: in average, about one-third of the respondents in the two countries, but there are more such people among the Tanzanian students. Indeed, among those not devoted to the traditional values there are still slightly more of those whose attitude to the non-African minorities is positive. So, traditionalism is a predictor, though not strong, of the autochthons' perception of the diasporas.
However, today the vast majority of the Afrotanzanians irrespective of ethnic origin and religion are proud of belonging to this culture and consider it as African and pre-colonial, and hence not owing its emergence to colonialism, integrating people of different African ‘tribes’ in the Tanzanian nation atop (not instead of) their particular ethnic origins. In fact, the Tanzanians usually know the origin (not only ethnic but regional as well) of their friends, neighbors and colleagues, what some of our European and Indian respondents in both countries liked to emphasize arguing that the Tanzanian or Zambian nation is a fiction. But to know does not inevitably mean to give priority; as a black Tanzanian professor told us, ‘We [Afrotanzanians] are ethnically blind in some sense. …If you want to lose people's respect, repeat every time from what ethnic group or region you are. Finally, someone will dare to ask you: “So… So what?’” For Afrotanzanians the Swahili culture, including language, is the root, source, and background of the Tanzanian nation, which hence does not owe its origin to the Europeans and European colonialism to a great extent. It is also the pledge of generally peaceful relations between different Bantu peoples of the country (Gerasimov 2008), although some of our older respondents, comparing the situation in the first decades of independence and now, argued that today ethnicity is actualizing due to economic or political reasons. During the survey undertaken in 2005, 77 per cent of our 994 respondents coming from all social layers indicated Swahili as their mother-tongue, while only six persons claimed for the Swahili ethnic origin.
…the ethno-linguistic situation in Tanzania is characterized by noticeable predominance of the Swahili language and by its use in all the key functions of communicative sphere. The languages of relatively large ethnic groups, such as the Sukuma, Nyamwezi, Haya and some others that preserve compact settlement, are not in such a threatening situation as the languages of small ethnic groups that can disappear in the non-distant future under the influence of mobility and dynamics of the contemporary Swahili language (see also Yoneda 2010).
The Indian and the Tanzanian cultures are of the kind that, even if there is a blend to a certain stage, they cannot blend completely because these are two different civilizations, each with a long history. They [Indo- and Afrotanzanians] live, they work together – they are together and they will continue being together, but I don't think the customs can ever blend to that extent that they could become one [culture].
…the nation, which in Ujamaa theory carries the national culture transmitted through Swahili, is in fact the state. Thus state ideology and National Culture become synonymous – an unjustified synonymy which has allowed the confusion between ‘objective’ Swahili culture (the historical culture of the coastal societies) and ‘subjective’ political Swahili culture (that of contemporary Tanzania)… (Blommaert 2006: 18; emphasis in the original).
[w]ith regard to deliberate attempts at promotion in both formal and informal areas of life and the creation of a true national and official language, the post-independence spread of Swahili among the population of Tanzania is regularly noted to be a remarkably successful example of African national language planning in a multi-ethnic context. Now, following considerable extended efforts from the 1960s onwards, Swahili is extremely widely known in Tanzania and used in education, government administration, and inter-ethnic communication throughout the country (Simpson 2008: 10).
While Tanzania is a lucky exception to the rule, Zambia, as well as most of post-colonial African states, does not have such an ‘objective’ – originally pre-colonial, at least partly – background for unity to build a national ideology. None of the local cultures is able to play this role; only in colonial time and due to colonialism the integration of rather different, previously often unrelated (or related loosely, or conflicting) peoples of contemporary Zambia began, so it is only the colonial socio-cultural legacy, including the English language, that can serve as the historical and cultural background for the formation of the Zambian nation. Some Zambians pointed out in their interviews that peoples of Zambia ‘have similarities in cultures and traditions’, ‘speak similar languages’ and so forth but, of course, none of them could argue that they belong to one particular autochthonous culture in the sense in which the Tanzanians coming from different ethnic groups share the Swahili culture. There should be no doubt that just the existence of the Swahili culture in Tanzania and lack of its analog in Zambia caused the difference in the percentage of respondents in the two countries who believe that there is a single integrated national culture, on the one hand, and that there are only separate ethnic cultures, on the other hand, notwithstanding the Zambian state's attempts since the 1990s to represent multilingualism (and hence multiculturalism) as an asset rather than an obstacle to nation-building (Marten and Kula 2008).
Furthermore, from the standpoint of nation-building prospects, Zambia has at least one more disadvantage compared to Tanzania. In pre-colonial time in Tanganyika (Tanzania's continental part now called Mainland) there were no strong centralized polities except the Shambaa (Shambala) kingdom (Winans 1962; Feierman 1974) which in the post-colonial independent state could become centers of tribalistic nationalist regionalism or separatism and excite the neighboring peoples' historical memory of the former subjugation.7 Some of our respondents named the lack of tribalism as a sign of Tanzanian nation's existence alongside with the Swahili culture and language. In the meantime in Zambia at least four such polities rose in the pre-colonial period (of the Bemba, Chewa, Lozi, and Lunda [Langworthy 1972; Roberts 1973; Banda 2002; Macola 2002; Mainga 2010]), and the answer of a student to the question, ‘What ... must be done in the sphere of interethnic relations?’ is symptomatic: ‘[It is necessary] to improve interethnic relations by removal of the inferiority complex that certain people from some ethnic cultures have towards other ethnic cultures, for example, Bembas and Lozis’. While the Tanzanian law does not recognize the power of chiefs, the Zambian Constitution of 1996 declares the creation of the House of Chiefs which, as its member told me openly in 2010, tries its best to influence all spheres of social and political life in the country at both regional and national levels, although officially its prerogatives are limited to so-called ‘traditional issues’. Village and district chiefs are also very influential figures at their levels of competence (e.g., as we found out during our field research, they cannot be avoided when a mining company intends to start and successfully carry on business in their areas).
So, while in Tanzania the national unity has the background in the autochthonous peoples' pre-colonial cultural history (and this fact is inflated and instilled in citizens' minds via official ideology), in Zambia the background was created (unintentionally, of course) only by the colonial regime. The majority of university students belong to the part of society that professes civil values and is devoted to the idea of nation and national values. Our evidence supports the hypothesis that the Zambian students' less one-sided and actually better perception of the minorities that formed due to colonialism can be explained as a projection of their less negative attitude to the country's colonial past as to the time when (contrary to the situation in Tanzania) the foundations of national unity were laid. In particular, among the Zambian respondents as distinct from the Tanzanians (43 vs. 25 per cent) there are much more of those who think that the foundations of the country's unity and progress were laid in colonial times; in Zambia this opinion is practically as popular as the idea that colonialism ‘did mainly harm’, while in Tanzania the latter clearly dominates. In the interviews many Zambian interlocutors told unequivocally that the Zambian nation formed or began to form in the colonial time with the country's gaining of independence as the climax point of the process. Here is a typical statement: the nation ‘formed after North-Western and North-Eastern Rhodesia were amalgamated in 1911 to form Northern Rhodesia which was declared independent Zambia in 1964. Since then the Zambian nation has existed well intact even if we have 72 ethnic groups’.8 In sharp contrast to Tanzania, nobody related the Zambian nation formation to the pre-colonial period, while several intellectuals (teachers and a businessman), whom we interviewed, argued that even at present there is no Zambian nation at all but only a conglomerate of more than seventy ‘tribal’ cultures.
Indeed, the more positive opinion of colonialism people have, the more tolerant to their European and South Asian compatriots they are: the percentage grows from 79 of those positive towards Europeans and 68 towards Indians among those who perceive colonialism as mainly an evil to 91 and 76, respectively, among those for whom colonialism is a source of national unity and progress. However, one should also note that the interdependence between the perceptions of the colonial past and non-African diasporas is incomplete: as I have pointed out in the very beginning, most of the respondents had expressed tolerant attitude to both diasporas, so even among those who believe that colonialism did mainly harm to the peoples of their respective countries, positive estimations of the Europeans and South Asians prevail.
So, I have tested and discussed a number of different factors that, as it was supposed initially, could shape the attitude of the African by origin Tanzanian and Zambian university students to the European and South Asian diasporas in their respective countries. Not all the factors to which consideration has been given have turned out significant; it relates to such factors as Christian or Muslim affiliation, coming from a larger or smaller ethnic group and settlement, and perhaps, the financial status. The role of secularization is important although rather contradictory. Among the significant unidirectional factors that promote a greater tolerance one can point a less negative estimation of the role of colonialism and a lower degree of concentration on the values of traditional culture; these factors contribute to the Zambian students' higher degree of tolerance compared to that of their Tanzanian peers.
However, I attach the greatest importance to the existing since the pre-colonial times the Swahili culture and language alongside with almost complete absence of strong centralized polities as a background for the autochthonous peoples' national integration in Tanzania while in Zambia before the colonial period they lacked such a background. The importance of these facts in itself is multiplied by the states' manipulations (use and abuse) with the historical memory.
These are the historically interrelated reasons why in the process of nation-building the Afrotanzanians can feel more acutely the unity within their community and hence, exclude their non-African by origin co-citizens more often and rigidly than the Afrozambians do. Thus, the different socio-cultural backgrounds reinforced by differences in the historical memory of the pre-colonial and colonial past to some extent underpin the students' differing (at the statistical level) attitude to the colonialism-born non-African minorities, though these minorities' position in the contemporary Tanzanian and Zambian societies is quite the same, remaining very specific and in a sense ambivalent.
 On these communities history in Tanzania and Zambia vide strictum: Don Nanjira 1976; Nagar 1996; Voigt-Graf 1998; Macmillan and Shapiro 1999; Lobo 2000; Phiri 2000, 2001; Lvova 2005; Haig 2007; Milner-Thornton 2009; Twaddle 2010. It is important to note that in reality those called Europeans can be English, Greeks, Serbs or of other origins, while Indians include people of many South Asian ethnic groups and religious communities, many of them originating not from the present-day Republic of India but from Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka; however, notwithstanding all these and other sharp divisions and even splits (e.g., by caste among Hindus), Africans usually consider them just as two homogeneous communities, without making distinctions between, for example, Gujarati and Sinhalese, Hindu, and Muslim Asians.
2 For this reason we do not deal here with the students' attitude to non-African minorities that either formed in precolonial time (like the Omani core of the Arab community in Tanzania) or are forming actively nowadays, particularly the Chinese diaspora in both states.
3 It is worth noting that the Europeans played a significant part in this process. In particular, the Christian missionaries often preached in Swahili, and Swahili became the language of instruction in missionary schools (Gromova 2012: 256).
4 See, for example, Zhukov 1983; Hurreiz 1985; Allen 1993; Whiteley 1993; Horton and Middleton 2000; Middleton 2004.
5 Mainly for the Omani Arabs – the oldest non-local community in the country that mixes with the Afrotanzanian majority most eagerly (Prins 1967; Lodhi 1986; Korotayev and Khaltourina 2008).
6 Although at the same time he made efforts to prevent disappearance of English from school curriculum and public life (see Ovchinnikov 2005: 59–61; Legère 2006: 176; Swilla 2009: 3–4; Gromova 2010: 51–52; Hamisi 2010: 46–47).
7 The problem of Zanzibar, the successor to the slave-trade Arab Sultanate of Zanzibar and, together with Tanganyika, a constituent member of the United Republic of Tanzania, is essentially different, although naturally has strong direct impact on the nation building process in the country (Peter and Othman 2006; Mwakikagile 2008; Shivji 2008; Demintseva 2011).
8 Seventy-two is the official number of local ‘tribes’ in Zambia which hence constitute the state's racial majority.
Allen, J. de V. 1993. Swahili Origins: Swahili Culture and the Shungwaya Phenomenon. Oxford etc.: James Currey.
Banda, L. E. C. 2002. The Chewa Kingdom. Lusaka: Desert Enterprise Limited.
Bharati, A. 1972. The Asians in East Africa: Jayhind and Uhuru. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Blommaert, J. 1999. State Ideology and Language in Tanzania. Cologne: Rudiger Koppe.
Blommaert, J. 2006. Ujamaa and Creation of the New Waswahili. In van der Walt, C. (ed.), Living through Languages: An African Tribute to René Dirven (pp. 5–22). Stellenbosch: SUN Press.
Bondarenko, D. M. 1996. Ancestor Cult as the Central Element of Traditional Religious and Mythological Systems of Tropical Africa. In Sledzevski, I. V., and Bondarenko, D. M. (eds.), Africa: Societies, Cultures, Languages (Problems of Theory and Methodology) (pp. 81–95). Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press. In Russian (Бондаренко, Д. М. Культ предков как центральный элемент традиционных религиозно-мифологических систем Тропической Африки. Африка: общества, культуры, языки (проблемы теории и методологии) / ред. И. В. Следзевский, Д. М. Бондаренко, с. 81–95. М.: Институт Африки РАН).
Bondarenko, D. M. 2008. Education and Tolerance in Contemporary Tanzania: The Ethno-Racial and Religious Aspects. In Korotayev, A. V., and Demintseva, Ye. B. (eds.), Interracial and Interethnic Relations in Contemporary Tanzania. Publications of the Russian Complex Expedition to the United Republic of Tanzania (2005 Field Season) (pp. 94–121). Moscow: LENAND. In Russian (Бондаренко, Д. М. Образование и толерантность в современной Танзании: этнорасовый и конфессиональный аспекты. Межрасовые и межэтнические отношения в современной Танзании. Труды российской комплексной экспедиции в Объединенной Республике Танзания (сезон 2005 г.) / ред. А. В. Коротаев, Е. Б. Деминцева, с. 94–121. М.: ЛЕНАНД).
Bondarenko, D. M. 2010. Education and Tolerance in Tanzania (by the Evidence Collected by the Russian Anthropological Expedition in 2003 and 2005). In Vinokurov, Yu. N. (ed.), Julius Kambarage Nyerere – the First President of Independent Tanzania (pp. 56–62). Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press. In Russian (Бондаренко, Д. М. Образование и толерантность в Танзании (по материалам Российской антропо-логической экспедиции 2003 и 2005 гг.). Джулиус Камбараге Ньерере – первый президент свободной Танзании / ред. Ю. Н. Ви-нокуров, с. 56–62. М.: Институт Африки РАН).
Brown, J. M. 2006. Global South Asians: Introducing the Modern Diaspora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Demintseva, E. B. 2011. Interethnic Relations in Zanzibar. In Vasiliev, A. M. (ed.), African Studies in Russia. Yearbook 2008–2009 (pp. 100–111). Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press.
Don Nanjira, D. D. C. 1976. The Status of Aliens in East Africa: Asians and Europeans in Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya. New York: Praeger.
Feierman, S. 1974. The Shambaa Kingdom: A History. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Fortes, M. 1966. Some Reflections on Ancestor Worship in Africa. In Fortes, M., and Dieterlen, G. (eds.), African Systems of Thought: Studies Presented and Discussed at the Third International African Seminar in Salisbury, December, 1960 (pp. 122–142). London: Oxford University Press for International African Institute.
Gerasimov, A. V. 2008. Relations between Afrotanzanian Ethnic Groups in Tanzania Mainland (Tanganyika). In Korotayev, A. V., and Demintseva, E. B. (eds.), Interracial and Interethnic Relations in Contemporary Tanzania. Publications of the Russian Complex Expedition to the United Republic of Tanzania (2005 Field Season) (pp. 57–83). Moscow: LENAND. In Russian (Герасимов, А. В. Взаимоотношения между этническими группами афротанзанийцев материковой части Танзании (Танганьика). Межрасовые и межэтнические отношения в современной Танзании. Труды российской комплексной экспедиции в Объединенной Республике Танзания (сезон 2005 г.) / ред. А. В. Коротаев, Е. Б. Деминцева, с. 57–83. М.: ЛЕНАНД).
Grinker, R. R., Lubkemann, S. C., and Steiner, C. B. (eds.) 2010. Perspectives on Africa: A Reader in Culture, History, and Representation. Malden, MA – Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gromova, N. V. 2008. The Swahili Language in Contemporary Tanzania: Significance, Role, Prospects. In Korotayev, A. V., and Demintseva, Ye. B. (eds.), Interracial and Interethnic Relations in Contemporary Tanzania. Publications of the Russian Complex Expedition to the United Republic of Tanzania (2005 Field Season) (pp. 84–93). Moscow: LENAND. In Russian (Громова, Н. В. Язык суахили в современной Танзании: значение, роль, перспективы. Межрасовые и межэтнические отношения в современной Танзании. Труды российской комплексной экспедиции в Объединенной Республике Танзания (сезон 2005 г.) / ред. А. В. Коротаев, Е. Б. Деминцева, с. 84–93. М.: ЛЕНАНД).
Gromova, N. V. 2010. J. Nyerere’s Contribution to the Formation of Tanzania's Language Policy. In Vinokurov, Yu. N. (ed.), Julius Kambarage Nyerere – the First President of Independent Tanzania (pp. 49–55). Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press. In Russian (Громова, Н. В. Вклад Дж. Ньерере в формирование языковой политики Танзании. Джулиус Камбараге Ньерере – первый президент свободной Танзании / ред. Ю. Н. Винокуров, с. 49–55. М.: Институт Африки РАН).
Gromova, N. V. 2012. The Present and the Future of Swahili Language in East and Tropical Africa (Ethno-Linguistic Situation). In Balezin, A. S. (ed.), African Studies in Russia and Abroad: Stages, Trends, and Prospects (pp. 255–263). Moscow: Institute of General History Press. In Russian (Громова, Н. В. Настоящее и будущее языка суахили в Восточной и Тропической Африке (этнолингвистическая ситуация). Изучение истории Африки в России и за рубежом: этапы, тенденции, перспективы / ред. А. С. Балезин, с. 255–263. М.: Институт всеобщей истории РАН).
Haig, J. M. 2007. From Kings Cross to Kew: Following the History of Zambia's Indian Community through British Imperial Archives. History in Africa 34(1): 55–66.
Hamisi, A. M. 2010. Nyerere and Kiswahili: Julius Nyerere's Contribution to the Development of the Swahili Language. In Vinokurov, Yu. N. (ed.), Julius Kambarage Nyerere – the First President of Independent Tanzania (pp. 44–48). Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press. In Russian (Хамиси, А. М. Ньерере и суахили: вклад Джулиуса Ньерере в развитие языка суахили. Джулиус Камбараге Ньерере – первый президент свободной Танзании / ред. Ю. Н. Винокуров, с. 44–48. М.: Институт Африки РАН).
Horton, M., and Middleton, J. 2000. The Swahili: The Social Landscape of a Mercantile Society. Oxford – Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hurreiz, S. H. 1985. Origins, Foundation and Evolution of Swahili Culture. In Ogot, B. A. (ed.), Distinctive Characteristics and Common Features of African Cultural Areas South of the Sahara (pp. 101–123). Paris: UNESCO.
Knappert, J. 2005. Swahili Culture. Vols 1–2. Lewiston, ME: Edwin Mellen Press.
Korotayev, A. V., and Khaltourina, D. A. 2008. The Arabs in Tanzania. In Korotayev, A. V., and Demintseva, Ye. B. (eds.), Interracial and Interethnic Relations in Contemporary Tanzania. Publications of the Russian Complex Expedition to the United Republic of Tanzania (2005 Field Season) (pp. 8–27). Moscow: LENAND. In Russian (Коротаев, А. В., Халтурина, Д. А. Арабы в Танзании. Межрасовые и межэтнические отношения в современной Танзании. Труды российской комплексной экспедиции в Объединенной Республике Танзания (сезон 2005 г.) / ред. А. В. Коротаев, Е. Б. Деминцева, с. 8–27. М.: ЛЕНАНД).
Langworthy, H. W. 1972. Zambia before 1890: Aspects of Pre-colonial History. London: Longman.
Legère, K. 2006. Formal and Informal Development of the Swahili Language: Focus on Tanzania. In Arasanyin, O. F., and Pemberton, M. A. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp. 176–184). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Lobo, L. 2000. They Came to Africa: 200 Years of the Indian Presence in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Sustainable Village.
Lodhi, A. Y. 1986. The Arabs in Zanzibar (From the Sultanate to the People's Republic). Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 7(2): 404–418.
Lvova, E. S. 2005. Non-African Christian Communities of Dar es Salaam. In Savateev, A. D. (ed.), Muslims and Christians in Contemporary Tanzania: Works by the Russian Expedition Members (pp. 90–115). Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press. In Russian (Львова, Э. С. Инонациональные христианские общины Дар-эс-Салама. Мусульмане и христиане в современной Танзании: Труды участников российской экспедиции / ред. А. Д. Саватеев, с. 90–115. М.: Институт Африки РАН).
Macmillan, H., and Shapiro, F. 1999. Zion in Africa: The Jews of Zambia. London: Tauris.
Macola, G. 2002. The Kingdom of Kazembe: History and Politics in North-Eastern Zambia and Katanga to 1950. Münster: LIT Verlag.
Mainga, M. 2010. Bulozi under the Luyana Kings: Political Evolution and State Formation in Pre-colonial Zambia. Oxford: African Books Collective.
Marten, L., and Kula, N. C. 2008. Zambia: ‘One Zambia, One Nation, Many Languages’. In Simpson A. (ed.), Language and National Identity in Africa (pp. 291–313). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mazrui, A. M., and Shariff, I. N. 1994. The Swahili: Idiom and Identity of an African People. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
Middleton, J. 1994. The World of the Swahili: An African Mercantile Civilization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Middleton, J. 2004. African Merchants of the Indian Ocean: Swahili of the East African Coast. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Milner-Thornton, J. 2009. Absent White Fathers: Coloured Identity in Zambia. In Adhikari, M. (ed.), Burdened by Race. Coloured Identities in Southern Africa (pp. 185–207). Cape Town: UCT Press.
Mwakikagile, G. 2008. The Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar: Product of the Cold War? Pretoria: New Africa Press.
Nagar, R. 1996. The South Asian Diaspora in Tanzania: A History Retold. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East: A Journal of Politics, Culture, and Economy 16(2): 1–19.
Oonk, G. 2004. The Changing Culture of the Hindu Lohana Community in East Africa. Contemporary South Asia 13(1): 7–23.
Ovchinnikov, V. 2005. Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere (1922–1999): Teacher, Politician, and Poet. In Vinokurov, Yu. N. (ed.), Julius Nyerere: Humanist, Politician, Thinker (pp. 56–62). Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publishers.
Peter, C. M., and Othman, H. 2006. Zanzibar and the Union Question. Zanzibar Legal Services Centre Publication Series No 4. Zanzibar: Zanzibar Legal Services Centre.
Phiri, B. J. 2000. A History of Indians in Eastern Province of Zambia. Lusaka: The Author.
Phiri, B. J. 2001. Zambians of Indian Origin: A History of Their Struggle for Survival in a New Homeland. Communications of the Centre for Advanced Studies of African Societies. Occasional Paper No 12. Cape Town: CASAS.
Prins, A. H. J. 1967. The Swahili-Speaking Peoples of Zanzibar and the East African Coast: Arabs, Shirazi and Swahili. Ethnographic Survey of Africa: East Central Africa Pt. 12. London: International African Institute.
Roberts, A. 1973. A History of the Bemba: Political Growth and Change in North-Eastern Zambia before 1900. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Shivji, I. G. 2008. Pan-Africanism or Pragmatism: Lessons of the Tanganyika-Zanzibar Union. Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publishers.
Simpson, A. 2008. Introduction. In Simpson, A. (ed.), Language and National Identity in Africa (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swilla, I. N. 2009. Languages of Instruction in Tanzania: Contradictions between Ideology, Policy and Implementation. African Study Monographs 30(1): 1–14.
Topan, F. 2008. Tanzania: The Development of Swahili as a National and Official Language. In Simpson, A. (ed.), Language and National Identity in Africa (pp. 252–266). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Twaddle, M. 2010. East African Asians through a Hundred Years. In Clarke, C., Peach, C., and Vertovec, S. (eds.), South Asians Overseas: Migration and Ethnicity (pp 149–166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Usov, V. A. 2010. India and Africa at the Turn of Millennium. Past, Present, and Future. Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press. In Russian (Усов, В. А. Индия и Африка на рубеже тысячелетий. Прошлое, настоящее, будущее. М.: Институт Африки РАН).
Voigt-Graf, C. 1998. Asian Communities in Tanzania: A Journey through Past and Present Times. Hamburg African Studies Series No. 7. Hamburg: Institute of African Affairs.
Whiteley, W. H. 1993. Swahili: The Rise of a National Language. Aldershot: Gregg Revivals.
Winans, E. V. 1962. Shambala, the Constitution of a Traditional State. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Yoneda, N. 2010. ‘Swahilization’ of Ethnic Languages in Tanzania: The Case of Matengo. African Study Monographs 31(3): 139–148.
Zhukov, A. A. 1983. Swahili Culture, Language, and Literature (Pre-colonial Period). Leningrad: Leningrad State University Press. In Russian (Жуков, А. А. Культура, язык и литература суахили (доколониальный период). Л.: ЛГУ).
The Appendices include, as examples, the Questionnaire Form and General Plan of an Interview used in Zambia. Those used in Tanzania did not differ from them, except natural changes of names of the countries, ethnic groups and so forth. Besides, in Tanzania the questionnaire was available not only in English but also in the Swahili language.
10. Do you think that your ethnic origin may influence your career?
17. Whom do you communicate most often in your neighbourhood with? ÿ People of my ethnic group ÿ People of other ethnic groups.
ÿ People of my and other ethnic groups on more or less equal terms.
ÿ People of my religion irrespective of their ethnic group.
18. Which of the statements is closer to your opinion?
ÿ There is no single integrated Zambian culture; there are cultures of many different ethnic groups.
ÿ There is no single integrated Zambian culture; the cultures of originally Zambian peoples form one culture, while the immigrants’ cultures are separate.
ÿ There is a single integrated Zambian culture that unites cultures of all the peoples living in Zambia.
Zambian Europeans are well integrated into Zambian society?
Zambian Indians are well integrated into Zambian society?
Recent immigrants from other African states are well integrated into Zambian society?
21. Do you know traditional songs and fairy tales of your people?
23. Whom would you consult in the case of disease?
25. In your opinion, which of the arguments below is closer to the truth?
ÿ Colonialism did mainly harm to the peoples of Zambia.
ÿ Colonialism was nothing more than a short episode in the country and her peoples' long history.
ÿ In the colonial time the background of the present-day unity and progress of Zambia and her people was laid.
Thank you for co-operation !
1. Can you describe your family? How long does it live in this city? Do you have parents, brothers and sisters, spouse, children? Do they all live with you? How often do you communicate with your close and distant relatives that live not in your home settlement?
3. Where have you studied?
5. What is your mother tongue? Can you speak any other languages? If yes, what languages?
6. What is your religion and denomination? Have you any relatives among people of other religions or denominations? If yes, who and of what faith?
7. What is the name of your people (ethnic group, tribe)? Have you any relatives among people of other ethnic origins? If yes, who and of what origin?
8. How do you feel in the first, second, and third place: ‘Zambian’, ‘Zambian African (Zambian Indian, Zambian European)’, ‘Bemba (Gujarati, etc.)’?
9. What are the features which, in your opinion, distinguish your people from other peoples of Zambia?
10. How do you see the role of your ethnic group in the life of Zambia in the past, now, and in the future?
11. Do you know ethnic origins of your friends, neighbours, and colleagues? People of what origins do you communicate most often with? In what situations?
12. How can you describe Zambians of African origin?
13. What do people usually say about them?
14. How can you describe Zambian Europeans?
15. What do people usually say about them?
16. How can you describe Zambian Indians?
17. What do people usually say about them?
18. Are there any peoples in Zambia the relations between which were in the past or are now typically especially friendly or hostile?
19. How do you see the interethnic relations in Zambia in the past, now, and in the future?
20. What have the state, public organizations, etc. been doing and what (else) should be done for the intercultural relations harmonization?
21. What have the state, public organizations, etc. been doing and what (else) should be done for the younger generations' rising culturally tolerant?
22. Do you think there is the ‘Zambian nation’? Why? If yes, when has it formed? What are the distinctive characteristics of Zambian identity and Zambian culture? If no, are there prospects for its formation? Is it desirable?

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.