> The article addresses racial injustice directly, although not in the direction that you think: First, the claim that this benefited "black and other nonwhit

> The article addresses racial injustice directly, although not in the direction that you think: First, the claim that this benefited "black and other nonwhite workers" is completely unsubstantiated by the actual Farber paper. But secondly, that is not "addressing racial injustice". The people who weren't deported and didn't have their land forcibly seized by union members[0] benefited economically, yes, but that was never the question. And pretending it is misses the entire point. [0] which was permitted under California law, after the Exclusion act