{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03887510339123242, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007444168734491315, 'mean_word_length': 4.734597156398104, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Seeing the past as the present that it once was: A response to Nancy Struna's 'reframing the direction of change in the history of sport' (IJHS, December 2001)

In the title of her article, ‘Reframing the Direction of Change in the History of Sport’ (IJHS, December 2001), Nancy Struna appears to be suggesting that she has identified, or is proposing, a ‘new dimension’ missed or neglected by previous sport historians. She poses a number of interlinked questions: how can we limit the subjective effects of the historian on the examination of the past? And, from whose and from what perspective should we view the process of historical change? One of the essential questions which she presents is whether we should view history from ‘our’ point of view or ‘theirs’ – ‘Whose story do we intend to tell – theirs or ours?’, she asks. After offering a number of examples, her article concludes that it is better for us as historians to view history as ‘a movement away from’ than a process of ‘moving towards’ because ‘change occurs as people move away from their experiences rather than toward those that appeared in the future’ (p.2). In the Abstract, the conclusions of her article are summarized as follows: