I voted no because I personally wouldn't use them as a racist symbol or refer to a person as a gollywog.
But I would have prefered an "undecided" option in the poll because I believe that some people would use them in that way.
I don't think it's as simple as saying "they are racist because they are black" though and I can't think of a white equivilent to a gollywog.
When my cousin and I were little we were both given a rag doll. Mine was white and hers was black, but she wasn't a golly, she looked identical to mine except she was made with brown material and had black plaits rather than white material and yellow plaits. They were both very beautiful.
I've seen realistic looking baby dolls that are black and the same baby dolls that are white, Barbie style dolls that are black and white, Joseph has fisher price little people toys of all colours and racial appearence and if anyone said they were racist I would disagree.
The image of a gollywog is a caricature which does what all caricatures do and exaggerates certain features of the person they are meant to be. In this case it caricatures an entire race and in past times ignorant people have used the gollywog image to be derogatory and that is why I am unsure.
In general, some caricatures can accentuate the positive things about a person and some can pick on the negative things (I've had two of me drawn in the past, one I loved and had it framed, the other was torn up into bits because it upset me). I don't think that the features on a golly are negative features but I do think a lot of people would either use them to make offensive assumptions and exaggerations or feel that they were stereotypes and unrealistic and offensive.
What is racist and what is offensive can be subjective but I don't think it is possible for racisim to work in one direction only, it goes both ways.
A white person can be racist against a black person but equally a black person can be racist against a white person and racism is wrong no matter which direction it goes in.
