Racial IDs?

So looking back at my race relations class last semester, one question always seemed to resurface in my mind as we'd discuss the benefits, or setbacks, awarded by simply being of a certain race or being portrayed as a part of that race, why did this happen. While its is wholly obvious... for one "race's" benefit (the quotations are there because of the topics depth, I'll get to it later), often at the expense of another, most of the time the class targeted how people used science to "prove" someone was of a certain race. Showing the contradictions, Indians (Asian Indians, not Native Americans) for example were classified as Asiatic until one man made a case that they were good outstanding citizens, at which point they became reclassified as "white," and therefore granted full citizenship rights in America. This was later overturned, by "science" of course, in which the supreme court argued that "whiteness" was determined by the common man, or the mob as it were, and as these people had actually enjoyed nothing out of the ruling except minimal land ownership and were still treated as Asiatics were treated, their citizenship status as white was revoked (I think roughly 30 years later).

So back the the "race" quote. History buffs know that the idea of "whiteness" was nowhere to be found in early America, until the wealthy upper-class realized that they were severely outnumber by the ready to revolt under-class. So the term white was created as a divide and conqure tactic to pit the lower classes against each other, and 200 years later, New Orleans is declared a "chocolate city"... blah blah blah you know the history.

I just really thought this was of note because when this issue was at its prime, there were no layers of real separation between politics and science (of course the people would say otherwise) but it really brings into question why these two topics were separated in the first place... and brings into question why anyone is falling for it.