Similarities Between Coretta Scott King And Oprah Winfrey

Both Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks were incredible, strong women who spent - and risked - their lives fighting for what they believed in and the social justice that they thought their people deserved. Rosa Parks and the infamous Montgomery, Alabama bus ordeal is considered one of the most influential events in black social justice history, and Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s wife, was also an avid social reformer and fought just as hard as her husband to promote equal rights for black people. It’s very fitting, then, that two other celebrity advocates of social justice, Maya Angelou and Oprah Winfrey, respectively, deliver a eulogy for them. On top of that, Maya Angelou was one of King’s best friends, and had a very close

personal connection to her. Oprah Winfrey was inspired by Rosa Parks and, as she said in her speech, “I owe you, to succeed. I will not be moved”. I believe, however, that Maya Angelou’s skill with words, herself being a poet, and her close, personal relationship with King make her speech more effective than Winfrey’s respect and indirect connection to Rosa Parks.

In their introductions, both women expertly manipulated language techniques and characteristics of ceremonial speaking when telling eulogies. Oprah Winfrey directly mentioned the reverend at the church at which she spoke, she mentioned Parks’ family, her friends, her admirers, and the choir, essentially addressing everyone in the room except Rosa Parks herself. Throughout her introduction, Oprah speaks relatively quickly - not too quickly, but as an audience member, I did not feel the words sinking in before she moved on to her next point - with a few short breaks. I found this ineffective, as, like I said, I didn’t have time to feel the words sink in before Winfrey moved on to the next main point. She asked no rhetorical questions, very little storytelling, and had almost no credibility other than “she was my role model”. Despite these lacking aspects, she did use a quotation, albeit from herself and not from Parks, and included some humor - successfully making her audience laugh. For a eulogy, it seemed fitting - a personal story of what the person meant to the speaker, a lay

testimony of sorts of how impactful the person was, and an effective and timely use of humor to soothe the audience members just a little bit. On the other hand, Maya Angelou had what could be argued to be expert testimony on the subject of Coretta Scott King. As Angelou said, “I speak as a sister...for over 30 years, Coretta Scott King and I have telephoned”. This wasn’t in her introduction, but it made Winfrey’s connection to Parks pale in comparison. Angelou was speaking to an audience in Georgia, which used to be one of the most discriminatory states in the U.S., presumably to an audience made up of a majority of African-American people. She uses contrast as emphasis in her introductory lines: “In the midst of national tumult, in the medium of international violent uproar, Coretta Scott King’s face remained a study in serenity”. Doing so was a simple and effective way of setting up a tribute speech, by showing how a person stands out from the crowd. Funnily enough, despite the fact that Angelou’s introduction felt a lot better to me as an audience member, she used less literary techniques than Winfrey did. As a globally renowned poet, she may have done so knowingly, as she would have most likely studied various language techniques in her practice, but other than the contrast and an incredibly effective use of anaphora on “She believed…”. This anaphora really allowed each phrase to sink in to the audience and made sure they acknowledged each one. Later, Angelou uses another type of repetition - parallelism this time - when speaking of everything that King cared about and loved, as tribute to her character. This time, it was less effective, at least to me, because it had very little context. I knew that King was a good woman, but Angelou didn’t really explain to me why she was revered as a social justice fighter if she just “liked everyone”. Overall, both introductions were effective and did well to recognize the situation and tribute the dead, but Angelou’s literary devices and expert use of language felt as if they just impacted harder and made listeners feel as she did.
Throughout their speech bodies, both women drastically changed the course of their speeches. Winfrey’s became a “thank you” to Parks, in which she seemingly stopped addressing the audience and started speaking directly to Parks. I found this incredibly ineffective, counterproductive even. I felt a severe disconnect from and loss of interest towards Winfrey after her introduction because she stopped speaking of Rosa Parks and began speaking TO Rosa Parks. Since I never met her, and she died before I was born, I could not relate at all to the situation. I would understand if a few comments were made such as “you were a great person” and other similar things, but devoting the entire body and conclusion of the speech to one entity or audience member ruins it for all of the others. Again, she spoke clearly and used a lot of effective speech techniques, but the only person who would’ve been able to appreciate it was Rosa Parks and, indirectly, people who were very close to her and could relate to what Winfrey said. At a eulogy for a woman such as Rosa Parks, with hundreds of people in the audience, speaking to only one ruined the rest of the speech for me as a listener. On the other hand, Angelou tells stories, a dozen short narratives about things that she had done with King and why they meant so much to each other. Also, some very great use of quotations mixed with humor allowed Angelou to loosen her audience up, if only a little. She made short, simple quips at relatable situations and, honestly, as a listener, I related more to an eighty-year-old black woman than I thought I ever would in my life. When someone establishes common ground and identification between herself and arguably the most different audience member possible, it’s doubtless that her common ground is effective. Then, unlike earlier when Angelou told us how much King loved everyone with no support or emphasis whatsoever, Angelou used one of the most effective quotations that she could’ve possibly used in a situation such as that one: “Sister, it shouldn’t be an ‘either-or’, should it? Peace and justice should belong to all people, everywhere, all the time. Isn’t that right?”. What better way to prove the legitimacy and pureness of a social justice activist than a direct quotation that was said in full privacy that said the same thing that King continuously said publicly? When a quote can prove that a person goes home tired from fighting for social justice and the only thing on his/her mind is social justice, and a quote can prove that, then that’s the most effective quote possible when giving a tribute speech to a social justice advocate. In contrast to the detached and disconnected feeling that the Winfrey speech gave me throughout the middle and latter portions of her speech, Angelou effectively uses quotes and identification to connect with her audience and to deliver a great, impactful eulogy for her friend.
The drastic differences between Maya Angelou’s and Oprah Winfrey’s speech bodies winds down in the conclusion portions of their speeches.

Despite the completely different directions that the bodies went in, both speakers end with a promise, some strategic repetition, whether in the form of repetition throughout the speech or another anaphora, and a call to action as their closing remarks. Winfrey attempted to connect back with her audience in the form of the word “we”, but for me it was not enough to make up for the disconnect that I had felt earlier. Her strategic repetition of the phrase “We/I will not be moved” throughout her conclusion and the end of her body paragraphs did an excellent job of tying the speech together, and was probably the most effective and powerful piece of the speech. Her tone and voice got louder and more decisive towards the very end of her speech, which definitely helped audience members get inspired to also not be moved by any social injustice or discrimination. Similarly, Angelou’s conclusion addressed everyone gathered as “we” and told them that “We owe something [to King]”. This was effective because she had been connecting with her audience throughout the entire speech and we could relate to her so much that if she decided that she owed King something, then we could justify owing her something as well. Then, she used repetition in the form of another anaphora with “I mean to say”, again driving in the point of each phrase really effectively.

Lastly, she talks to King and tells her some closing remarks, which is understandable for the eulogy of her best friend, sings a promise to never stray from the path that King had set, and ends her speech.
In conclusion, Maya Angelou definitely had the more effective speech, as she connected with the audience and fulfilled her purpose - to spread the feelings that she had for Coretta Scott King to her audience members and to make them see her through Angelou’s eyes. Her literary techniques were incredibly effective throughout the speech, and her use of language was expert throughout. Her close friendship with King allowed her to establish her own credibility and deliver a powerful eulogy that the audience members could generally relate to really well. On the other hand, despite her really strong conclusion and relatable introduction (of being raised with massive respect towards Parks), Winfrey’s speech was not as effective, mostly because her purpose, alongside most of her speech overall, was never directed towards the audience that she addressed in the beginning. Most of it was addressed directly to Rosa Parks, and the disconnect that the audience suffered was almost too much to overcome. Maya Angelou delivered an effective, relatable, and heartfelt eulogy for one of her best friends, and did so in a way that was much more effective than Oprah Winfrey’s respectful thanking of Rosa Parks that had almost no context, credibility, or audience interaction whatsoever. Despite the fact that Winfrey’s speech paled in comparison to Angelou’s, both were incredible speeches from incredible women and should not be taken for granted.