Table of contents
13. Monuments, memorials and difficult memories
This activity can be carried out in a classroom or in a museum.
Target group: Students, youth (15 years old and older)
Duration: 110 minutes
Group size: 12 – 30 participants
Activity objective
To analyze how historical monuments and sites of memory can be co-opted, appropriated, or manipulated by modern extremist and neo-Nazi groups;
to build empathy, perspective-taking skills, and understanding of the emotional and societal impact of memory desecration;
to empower participants to think critically about public memory and develop active citizenship strategies to protect democratic monuments from extremist misuse.
Expected learning results
By the end of the activity, participants will be able to:
- identify the rhetorical strategies, loaded language, and visual symbols used by extremist groups to hijack historical narratives;
- demonstrate perspective-taking by analyzing a single event from multiple community stakeholder viewpoints;
- to propose concrete civic actions to protect and safeguard physical and digital public spaces of memory.
Description of the activity
This activity guides participants through a structured exploration of historical memory, confronting modern extremist co-optation of historical sites (specifically Falstad and Stiklestad in Norway), and practicing perspective-taking.
Part I: Unveiling the Memorial Sites (10-15 minutes)
Introduce the two focal historical sites in Norway. Briefly explain their primary histories:
1. SS Strafgefangenenlager Falstad: A Nazi prison camp during WWII where over 4,200 prisoners were held and hundreds executed. Today, it is a state memorial and human rights center. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falstad_concentration_camp & https://falstadsenteret.no/en/history for more information).
2. Stiklestad: The site of the historic Battle of Stiklestad (1030 AD), central to the Christianization of Norway and used for centuries as a symbol of Norwegian identity & nation-building (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stiklestad & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiklestad, https://stiklestad.no/en/ ).
Display photos of both sites today (see below or choose your own from the sources provided). Ask the plenary:
What makes a physical place become “sacred” or “memorialized” for a society?
What happens to a community when such spaces are built?
Write key terms on the flipchart (e.g., respect, mourning, identity, history).
Part II: The Clashing Narratives – Source Analysis (30 minutes)
Divide participants into groups of 3 to 4. Hand out the prepared primary source packets. These packets contain:
1) carefully curated and translated excerpts from a contemporary blog post by a Scandinavian neo-Nazi group (see below);
2) links (QR codes) to the official website of the Falstad Centre (https://falstadsenteret.no/en/ or https://falstadsenteret.no/en/history ) & Stiklestad (https://stiklestad.no/en/) (you can also provide printed out photos and texts from these websites if you think it is better for your target audience). Instruct groups to analyze the sources using a comparative grid focusing on:
1. Vocabulary & Tone: What kind of language is used in the two sets of texts & images? (Identify loaded words, emotional appeals, and aggressive rhetoric).
2. Imagery & Symbols: How are flags, uniforms, and monument backdrops used in extremist photos and in official sources?
3. Intent: What is the ultimate goal of the official sites versus the extremist blog post?
Give the groups 20 minutes to complete this task.
After that, have a short discussion (approximately 10 minutes) about their findings. Ask them the following questions:
Why are extremists so drawn to ancient symbols (like Stiklestad) or painful historical sites (like Falstad)? What are they trying to gain by associating themselves with these places?
What did you notice about the language and visual tools used on the extremist blog post as opposed to the official sources?
How does identifying these strategies help us protect ourselves from manipulation?
Part III: Other People’s Shoes (25-30 minutes)
Explain that as the group has probably understood, local memorial sites were targeted by an extremist group for an unpermitted political rally and photo-shoot to promote their ideology online. Explain that in the next part of the activity each group will receive a certain role and they will have to analyse the activity of the extremist group from the perspective of this role, i.e., to think how these people were affected by this event (the rally). If you work with a big group, the same role(s) can be given to two groups.
Roles/Perspectives:
Perspective A: The Descendant: A grandchild of a political prisoner who died at Falstad.
Perspective B: The Local High School Teacher: Trying to teach students human rights while local landmarks are being used for hate speech.
Perspective C: The Memorial Curator: Responsible for maintaining the historical integrity, safety, and respect of the physical grounds of the memorial sites.
Perspective D: The Local Mayor/Politician: Balancing free speech laws, community safety, and the public reputation of the town.
Perspective E: The Modern Teenager: Living in the local community, seeing these clashes on their social media feeds.
In their groups, participants must discuss and answer the following questions from the exclusive viewpoint of their assigned persona:
1. How does this action make us feel, and why does it affect us directly?
2. What do we stand to lose if this extremist narrative becomes the dominant one online or in public spaces?
3. What action should we take to respond to this challenge, and what do we need from the other stakeholders?
Give the groups 10 to 15 minutes to complete this task. After this, a representative from each group presents their persona’s stance. Highlight where perspectives overlap (e.g., shared pain, desire for safety) and where tensions lie (e.g., curator’s duty of neutrality vs. descendant’s emotional distress) (allow around 15 minutes for this discussion).
Part IV: Active Citizenship & Safeguarding (10-20 minutes)
Bring the participants back to the plenary circle. Transition from the simulated perspectives to their own real-life voices. Pose the challenge: We cannot erase extremist websites or easily stop people from taking photos, but we can change how society reacts. How do we protect public memory from extremist misuse?
Brainstorm concrete digital and physical actions (e.g., creating counter-narratives, local solidarity events, educational campaigns, or digital flagging). Record these action items on the flipchart.
After that, conduct the final debriefing.
Reflection
- How did it feel to step into “other people’s shoes” during this activity? Did looking at the issue through your assigned persona change your initial emotional reaction to the extremist propaganda?
- How do you think survivors, local communities, or descendants of victims feel when places of suffering are co-opted for hateful ideologies?
- Who owns historical memory? Is it the state, the local community, the families of victims, or does it belong to everyone?
- What is our ethical responsibility as democratic citizens when we witness historical facts being distorted or public monuments being misused?
- How can we balance democratic values, like freedom of expression and assembly, with the need to protect vulnerable groups and preserve the dignity of memorial sites?
- What is your main takeaway from the activity?
Tips for teachers/ educators
Safeguard the сlassroom space: dealing with extremist propaganda (like frihetskamp.no) can trigger strong emotional responses. Ensure students understand that analyzing hate speech is a scholarly exercise in critical defense, not an endorsement.
Do not use live links: never ask students to browse live neo-Nazi or extremist websites. Always provide pre-selected, heavily curated, and printed/PDF excerpts. This prevents exposure to algorithmic recruitment and ensures student safety.
Scaffold perspective-taking: If students struggle to adopt their assigned persona, guide them with leading questions (e.g., “If you were a curator who spent decades preserving graves, how would you feel seeing a hate group pose on them?”).
Connect with the “Other People’s Shoes” frame: Remind students that putting on someone’s shoes doesn’t mean agreeing with them; it means understanding their context, challenges, and motivations to build smarter, more compassionate civic responses.
Localize the lesson: If teaching outside of Norway, this methodology can easily be adapted to local monuments, controversial statues, or historical memory debates within your own country.
Required materials
- Printed or digital primary source packets (Excerpts from Falstad/Stiklestad official sites and curated/translated texts and images from frihetskamp.no – see Appendix below).
- Five printed “Perspective Cards” for the “Other People’s Shoes” phase.
- Whiteboard, flipcharts, and markers to record stakeholder viewpoints and brainstorming notes.
- Timer to manage the structured group phases.
Authors/Copyright
Sebastian Klein / The Falstad Centre; Khrystyna Chushak / The European Wergeland Centre