Tanzania, with its vast size of 945,087 square kilometres, has a population of  about 29 million people (the official number) and more than 100 tribal groups. Different to Kenya, the reign of Nyerere focused on unifying the nation into one similar group of people, and as a result many tribal groups in Tanzania have given up their distinct way of dress or language. Swahili is the first national language, and education is in Swahili; English comes second.

The majority of the mainland tribal groups have a Bantu origin, and have all been influenced to a certain degree by the great mass movements southwards of the Bantu groups (these stretching down south as far as Southern Zimbabwe, and even Northern Namibia).

Of the non- Bantu groups, the Masai are the most widely known. Nilotic speaking, with distinct Nilotic physical features and their typical cattle based society, they inhabit the northern area of Tanzania. As in Kenya, economic pressures and the establishment of National Parks have made many of them settle, and they have been strongly influenced by the Ujamaa policy (the unification). Some of them have retained their nomadic life style though.

 A notion on the use of the word “tribe”

The definition of  “tribe” (and its related terms “tribal area” and “tribal authority”) is surrounded by an interesting dilemma. Basically, the colonial rulers applied the terms “tribe”, “tribal area” and “tribal authority” as a way of understanding who was in power, who originated from where, and who was related to whom at the time of arrival. Recently, this definition has received a lot of criticism (from various academic fields like sociology, politicology, economics): the tribes found by colonizers were essentially a fluent and dynamic entity, but are since frozen into a certain frame which overlooks the dynamic of  (African) societies. The use of the term tribe, ignores the basic flexibility of African “tribal” societies, and make it difficult to explain therefore the changes in identities or conduct of members of a tribe. The situation encountered over a hundred years ago, was laid down in tribes, tribal areas and tribal authorities, which are still used now. This does not leave any space for change, an inherent part of African societies.

Although African societies may seem archaic, slow, resisting of change and may even refuse to adapt, they do have an inherent notion of  change and “movement”.  When used by the original “tribal” people, the term “tribe” always implies a certain form of movement. A tribe describes itself almost always as coming from elsewhere, finding new, better or empty land, of taking over, of migration…many different stories, but always of movement.

Members of African “tribes” have, throughout history, always amazed outsiders by their ability to up and move, and settle again. As long as you are part of a group, you can go anywhere, and settle anywhere, and still form the same tribe.  Being a member of a tribe, means being a member of a group, having access to its resources, shelter, protection; an identity, and a mode of conduct. A tribe in this definition can easily move, assimilate or take up other groups. Therefore, the rigid spatial setting put down by the term “tribes and their tribal areas” of over a hundred years ago does not explain sufficiently the fluidity of African groups: it only explains where they lived at the time of arrival of the colonizers.