Politically Correct Language Planning and the Names of Colors in Korean
My wife told me about this a few days ago, but I couldn't find anything in the English language press. Here is the full story from [Editorial] Six Children Found a New Korean Term:

The Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy's Korean Agency for Technology and Standards has standardized 133 Korean names for colors, and that is significant. "Skin color," which was called racist, will be called "apricot," in acceptance of a recommendation by the National Commission for Human Rights that the name be changed. Names such as "chick color" for yellow and "watermelon" for green, names we use commonly, may now be used in official contexts. Names have been defined in a national standard ("KS") for use in areas such as industry, culture, education.

The name "skin color," used frequently by students for describing a certain color found in paint or crayon, was the object of a lot of criticism. A group of foreign laborers and others said that it was problematic for being racist, and in 2002 the name was changed to "yeon ju hwang," meaning "light orange," but that was called a form of discrimination and civil rights abuse towards children for being a difficult word based on Chinese characters that was is hard for them to understand. The human rights commission suggested "apricot," a term without discriminatory connotations and that is easy to understand, because six elementary and middle school students filed a petition with the body and their bold and clever request was accepted.

Our society still has unclear expressions out of step with social changes, terms that are difficult to understand, and terms based in Japanese. The name of a color can cause different images to pop up in different people. The confusion and financial loss that occurs when colors named the same end up being different in actuality is significant for industries involved in stationery products, clothing, and household products. Language is a social contract. There exists a need to see whether there are more terms misused or overused that are from bygone eras and no longer hold meaning. Remnants of old must be corrected. It was a fresh approach when the six youths considered the issue from the perspective of civil rights.

Perhaps it's just the anarcho-Anglophone in me, but I find such langauge planning laughable and, frankly, a bit scary. Also, I'm all for children, but allowing them a say in such a matter is ridicuous. And what does the editorialist mean by this Rousseauian piece of nonsense: "Language is a social contract"? Between whom?