The presentation is based on an analysis of over forty in-depth interviews with residents of villages situated near the former Soviet penitentiary facility for political detainees, which in the mid-1990s was converted into the Perm-36 Memorial Museum in Perm Krai, Russia. Despite being a group that had witnessed the facility's entire existence (1946-1988), with many having worked there, most interviewees declined to discuss the camp, claiming ignorance about its internal life. Instead, local residents preferred to recount their own experiences, including surviving famines, enduring heavy forced labor on collective farms, and coping with everyday scarcities. Those who did discuss the camp paradoxically portrayed it as a symbol of civilization and prosperity, asserting that the detainees' lives were not as difficult as their own. The transformation of the camp into a museum was viewed negatively, as the locals did not consider it a site worthy of remembrance. This perspective of the local residents prompted the authors to reassess the museum's exhibits, considering whose viewpoints they represent. While the primary perspective intended by the founders of Perm-36 is that of the detainees, the viewpoint of the guards is also present, as some of them served as consultants during the museum's establishment. However, the perspective of the local peasants and their living conditions are notably absent from the exhibits. A similar pattern was observed by the authors in museums dedicated to Soviet repression in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. They conclude that the situation at Perm-36 can be understood within the context of decolonization, drawing on the concept of internal colonialism (Etkind; Kiossev). This suggests that in Russia and the USSR, modernization occurred at the expense of its geographic periphery and subaltern social groups, such as the peasantry. These groups remain underrepresented in the dominant narrative of historical memory, including museum exhibits.