Daily, David W. 1965-
Daily, David W. 1965-
Born 1965; married; wife's name Teri; children: Emma and Wilson. Education: Ouachita Baptist University, B.A.; Yale University, M.Div.; Duke University, Ph.D. Hobbies and other interests: reading, bicycling, hiking.
Professor. University of the Ozarks, Clarksville, AR, assistant professor of religion, 2000—.
Battle for the BIA: G.E.E. Lindquist and the Missionary Crusade against John Collier, University of Arizona Press (Tucson, AZ), 2004.
David W. Daily is an assistant professor of religion at the University of the Ozarks in Arkansas, where he has worked since 2000. On his faculty profile on the University of the Ozarks Web site, he cites his own college professors as inspiration for his decision to become a professor: "They became models for how I wanted to teach and learn by investing themselves in the lives of their students." Daily is the author of Battle for the BIA: G.E.E. Lindquist and the Missionary Crusade against John Collier.
Battle for the BIA looks at two men who were on opposite sides of the Native American rights battle of the early twentieth century. One of those men was John Collier, the longest-serving commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Collier was responsible for abolishing the racist policy of assimilation of the Indians, which had been backed for ages by government officials and Christian missionaries. He campaigned for the reestablishment of tribes and the preservation of tribal landholdings and Indian religions and customs. Collier spent the 1920s criticizing the BIA, especially its campaign to do away with Indian dances, which the agency deemed immoral. In 1933, Collier was appointed to the post of commissioner of Indian Affairs, a position he held until 1945. Once in power, he was able to enact his forward-thinking policies for the preservation of Native American culture and customs.
The man standing on the other side of the Native American rights debate was G.E.E. Lindquist, a well-known leader in the Protestant missionary movement during Collier's service as commissioner. Initially a supporter of gradual assimilation, Lindquist later adopted the more extreme position of overturning Collier's program and doing away with the BIA. He wanted to completely eradicate Indian religious ceremonies and end tribalism, and he devoted his life to these causes.
Of Battle for the BIA, Marc Pinkoski noted in American Indian Quarterly: "Clearly, Daily demonstrates that these men bear an opposing and reactionary relationship to one another. Throughout the text, he shows that these men personify the struggle within the U.S. government to determine policy about Indigenous peoples. He also shows that these men represent and articulate the logic, or at least the thinking, behind much of the U.S. government's assimilationist policy regarding Indigenous peoples in the first half of the twentieth century." Francis Paul Prucha in Catholic Historical Review praised the way that Daily treats Lindquist throughout the book: "It is hard to write a compelling history of losers, but Daily has done a very good job. He has treated Lindquist sympathetically but honestly." Pinkoski felt that a "shortcoming of the book is that Daily does not offer much analytical discussion of the ramifications of the findings that he presents. Nor does he relate this material to other literature on colonial enterprises, where a great deal of analysis has been performed on the relation of church and state with respect to colonialism." Pinkoski did observe, however, that the author is "careful to understand Native American identity and religious practices as a complex set of historic and social traditions. He respectfully details the consistency of the negotiation of identity and practices amidst the onslaught of pressures brought on by colonialism and the rapid expansion of settlement and capitalist development throughout the United States." "Battle for the BIA confirms that both sides (Collier and Lindquist) in the debate over Indian policy in the 1930s were driven by paternalistic visions—that both, despite their differing claims to promote Native American empowerment, ‘continued to act on the assumption of western superiority over tribal nations.’ Daily's contribution to work on the ‘Indian New Deal’ is therefore an important one," declared Gabriella Treglia in her review of the book for Journal of Ecclesiastical History.
BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES:
American Historical Review, December 1, 2006, Alison Bernstein, review of Battle for the BIA: G.E.E. Lindquist and the Missionary Crusade against John Collier, p. 1543.
American Indian Quarterly, January 1, 2007, Marc Pinkoski, review of Battle for the BIA, p. 205.
American Studies, March 22, 2006, Daniele Fiorentino, review of Battle for the BIA, p. 179.
Catholic Historical Review, October 1, 2005, Francis Paul Prucha, review of Battle for the BIA, p. 872.
Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, May 1, 2005, G. Gagnon, review of Battle for the BIA, p. 1654.
Journal of American History, September 1, 2005, Kenneth R. Philip, review of Battle for the BIA, p. 652.
Journal of Ecclesiastical History, January 1, 2006, Gabriella Treglia, review of Battle for the BIA, p. 190.
Journal of Religion, April 1, 2006, Cathleen D. Cahill, review of Battle for the BIA, p. 313.
Reference & Research Book News, February 1, 2005, review of Battle for the BIA, p. 59.
Wicazo Sa Review, September 22, 2005, Kevin Gover, review of Battle for the BIA, p. 146.
University of the Ozarks Web site,http://admissions.ozarks.edu/ (July 10, 2008), faculty profile.