Personal and Otherwise — February 21, 2013, 11:30 am

Where Broken Hearts Stand

Grief and recovery on the Badlands of North Dakota

For decades, the story of Theodore Roosevelt’s crushing loss has rested at the back of my mind, if for nothing more than that it seems the ultimate enigma in the biography of our most enigmatic president. Yet this facet of his life  surfaced for me recently not because of biography, but geography.

Roosevelt had a profound attachment to two humans: his mother, Mittie, and his first wife, the aristocratic Alice Lee. Both died in a single day when Roosevelt was but twenty-five years old. Ultimately, he took this grief to North Dakota’s Badlands, and somehow — we don’t know how — he coped. This is the enigma: though Roosevelt wrote in great detail about the day-to-day minutiae of this period (and all other periods) of his life, he said nothing at all about how he dealt with arguably his most important and formative loss. Surely the power of the landscape and the wild had something to do with his recovery, but we have no way to confirm this surmise.

So I filed the episode away as irrelevant to my purpose in visiting North Dakota for my feature on the state’s fracking boom in the March issue of Harper’s Magazine. The story would focus on more tangible matters: pipes, flares, drilling rigs, man camps, trucks, money. Yet it seemed to me during my conversations with North Dakotans about the oil industry that grief always lay in the room, a substratum of every conversation, evident mostly as resignation, especially among the handful of prairie-bred conservationists who struggle with the industry directly.

© Danny Wilcox Frazier/Redux

I met with Jan Swenson in the compact living room of a simple wood frame house on Bismarck’s orderly grid of streets. Swenson has been the director and, for all practical purposes, the staff of the Badlands Conservation Alliance for all of its dozen or so years. Though technically an activist, she isn’t true to type. Rather, she is distinctly North Dakotan, Nordic, graying, slight, and late middle-aged, with the habit of pausing at length before she answers, then responding carefully, in involved and fully formed sentences. Her attachment to the Badlands developed when she was a child in Bismarck, a small city set amid what was once prairie, then became wheat fields, and is now oil patch (to use the local term). The Badlands of her childhood offered a counterpoint to the squared and plowed landscape around the city. An hour away by car, it was rugged and rough, uninhabitable and indomitable as the name implied — a place where a child could encounter rattlesnakes and night skies dark enough to reveal all the stars.

Time passed, and she eventually married, moving to the Twin Cities for a time. She returned to the Badlands in the late 1980s to find that the nights there were no longer dark. Oil development had begun, and already natural gas set alight to flare from oil wells was competing with the stars. Her nascent activism began to flare, too.

A bit later, though, her father died. An inheritance in North Dakota usually consists of land, but her patrilineal homestead in the Red River Valley had long since passed to uncles and cousins. She took the cash her father left her and followed an instinct bred in the bones of farm people, converting her legacy to land. She bought a half-section, 320 acres, near Grassy Butte, just before oil rigs began to surround the area in the late 1990s.

Grassy Butte is cattle country, located at the edge of the Badlands. Before oil came along, conservationists battled ranchers about overgrazing. Swenson saw owning a piece of land as a way to inform her view of the struggle. She understood that the ranchers possessed a kind of special insight into the conditions of life on the plains, and that she would need to comprehend their attachment in order to be an effective conservationist. “I wanted to know what it was to live in that community. I loved the place, and I wanted to participate,” she told me. “I wanted to understand why it was so hard for me to talk to a grazier and not be able to share what we had in common.”

After buying the land, she began making plans to live there someday. “I was always of the mind I was going to be a crazy old woman living out at Grassy Butte when I was eighty,” she said. “I haven’t given up on that.”

A couple of things happened to introduce second thoughts, though. One of those was, of course, oil. The second was personal: the death of her son, Webster, at about the same time as the boom began. With his death came a parallel loss of her ability to engage with the land. She became almost literally disoriented. “The entire Badlands were like a strange landscape that I did not recognize,” she said. “It was almost like being lost. Like not knowing the roads any more or the landmarks.”

Over time, she recovered, mostly. She reforged her bond with the Badlands, and the wild places eased her grief. Like Roosevelt, she wouldn’t say how. But she did tell me that she hadn’t yet been able to reattach herself to her own parcel of land — only to the wilder land beyond. Her neighbor’s ranches had already been drilled for oil, becoming part of an industrialized landscape. Her half a square mile now sat in the center of 25,000 square miles on which oilmen have already drilled 5,000 of what might someday be 45,000 wells, laid out in a pattern as ordered and predictable as pixels on a flatscreen. She was no longer sure she could ever live there. “Would you move on?” she said. “I don’t know. I’m not there yet.”

Share
Single Page
wrote “Bakken Business” for the March 2013 issue of Harper’s Magazine.

More from Richard Manning:

From the August 2017 issue

Political Climbers

Environmentalist momentum in the West

From the January 2017 issue

Over the River

Returning home to Flint

From the February 2016 issue

The Trouble with Iowa

Corn, corruption, and the presidential caucuses

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Cost of a baby-stroller cleaning, with wheel detailing, at Tot Squad in New York City:

$119.99

Australian biologists trained monitor lizards not to eat cane toads.

Trump tweeted that he had created “jobs, jobs, jobs” since becoming president, and it was reported that Trump plans to bolster job creation by loosening regulations on the global sale of US-made artillery, warships, fighter jets, and drones.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today