Speaking of lessons to be learned from imbalanced human behavior (link). Despite their being racists, thieves, and all around deviant humans, it's interesting to me to learn about how, as individuals who vehemently disagreed with each other on a myriad of topics, the framers of the U.S. Constitution were able to shape a unified collective idea out of so many various passionate perspectives (even if within a semi-common cultural context).
Because whether we're talking about Pan Africanism (link) or local organizing, it's a skill that needs to be mastered in order to have constructive POLITICAL unity. UNLIKE ultra-local familial unity -- built on attraction and compatibility -- in the political world, sustainable unity doesn't come from black folks giving props to all black folks, and all black folks loving each other equally and unconditionally, it comes from honest expression, clear articulation and understanding of our differences (which alone takes a lot of time and energy), loving compromise, balance, and even disagreement.
Maybe to some this is nothing new. But I find that I, and others I observe, often forget this. It results in us trying to force familiar unity on our political allies, overlooking the understanding that in political unity there is much more room for strong, even irreconcilable, disagreement, than with familial unity. If we kept that in mind more often, I think we'd find broader unity much easier to build. You'd be surprised (at least I am) at how many political unions, historically and currently, are destroyed because of personal feelings, personal incompatibility, and an inability to separate the expectations of familial unity from the realism of political unity.