As Hallowell describes in the Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior and World View reading, “persons” are not limited to human begins, and that “persons” are classes of objects to which the self must become oriented. Additionally, as provided in the example of the Ojibwa, objects are treated and conceptualized as “persons”, not “things”, of an other-than-human class. Myths about natural objects play a critical role because their stories tell of these natural objects as characters, such as the sun and the Winds, that reinforces their other-than-human class (which is not always characterized as “human” form). In some cases, such as the myth of the Thunder Birds, these beings in other-than-human classes may be animals (which in this case, took on the human form through metamorphosis to marry the set of brothers). …show more content…
In other examples Hallowell describes, this may happen vice versa, such as a human shaman turning into a bear form, or a sorcerer’s soul leaving its body and appearing as a form of an animal. As such, due to these manifestations appearance may be deceptive, one never knows the power or intent behind the human or object, and must be cautions of “persons”. There is also cause and effect as an explanation of events. The idea that someone or something is responsible for events can be as simple as falling ill because one upset a sorcerer (even if without meaning to) to not being careful and causing retaliation by the masters for not treating the hunting of animals in proper respect and form. Moral values and obligations should be maintained in all relations and activities with each other (human and other-than-human classes). As Hallowell continues to explain, both humans and other-than-humans work together. For example, a hunter may share his catch with his kin and avoid hoarding, and other-than-human grandfathers may share their powers with their human