By Yohanes Supriyadi

West Kalimantan is a place in Indonesia know to the world as a place which is sensitive to ethnic-conflict violence. In this province live the Dayaks and Malays as original people, together with other ethnic groups coming from other islands in Indonesia, with their different custom, culture and dialects. In this propince there are several places which can be considered as areas which are sensitive to conflict. They are Sambas, Bengkayang, Pontianak and Landak Districts (Landak Regencies).

There have been 12 interethnic conflicts among community groups happening since 1963 in West Kalimantan covering the four areas above as follows: One conflict between Dayak community members and Chinese; nine times between Dayaks and Madurese, which besides happened in the four areas above, also happened in Sanggau District; once between Sambas Malays and Madurese in various places in Sambas District; and once between combination of Pontianak, Sambas. Ketapang Malays, together with Bugisnese, Banjarnese, Arabs and others in one side, and Madurese community members in other side, which happened in Pontianak city particularly around Kapuas Bridge (Alqadrie, 2002)

To create safe and peaceful situation is not only the duty of the government but also responsibility of all people, since it is the need of everybody. To live safely and peacefully in difference has become a need. Therefore it is necessary to make integrated efforts towards every community component to create a safe and peaceful multiethnic life. One of the sensitivity in a multi-ethnic society is that an ethnic conflict that can usually change into violence. This kind of conflict can only be avoided by creating a common life with mutual understanding and cooperation, mutual acceptance and respect among the members. People can not live together peacefully if they do not want to accept or respect the differences among themselves. However, to live this way one must actively involve himself personally or in group to strive for integration in society.

A strong social integration level happens when the distance between different ethnic group is very close (Liliweri,M.S. 2001). The action or activity in people’s integration process like this, which is done individually or colectively, systematically or spontaneously is meant to sentinously strive for understanding other ethnic groups, in order that the solidarity attitude is formed. Therefor, integration does not only accept conflict elimination but also the development of solidarity in multi-ethnic community.

Living together harmoniously in multi-ethnic community will be difficult to create without integration process efforts in the society. Vocabularie Philosopphique Lalande defines “integration” as the building of closer interdependence among parts of living organism or among the members of society. Integration, then is a process to unite people, that tends to make one harmonious word based on the arrangement which is considered by the members of the society equally harmonious (Duverger, 2002). While according to Munandar Soelaeman, people’s integration can be defined as the presence of cooperation of all community members, beginning from individuals, families, institutions, and people in general to obtain a fusion in the form of consensus of highly common respected values (Soelaeman, 2001) Integration is urgently needed in multiethnic society to lessen negative stereotype towards other ethnic groups. The higher integration position is, the more positive stereotive direction about other ethnic groups will be (Warnaen, 2002).

There are three district areas which have strong characteristics for building peace culture in West Kalimantan. They are Landak, Bengkayang, and Pontianak Districts. Based on YPB research at the end of 2003, it can be said that ethnicity arises due to interaction from the groups which feel “different”, when the differentiation between “we” and “they” becomes important.

Because the process of globalization becomes stonger, the interaction becomes bigger and unavoidable. Epstain (in Eriksen, 1996) points out that most of ethnicity is the result of modernization, that is when social change happens very quickly and unavoidably. The wider and and faster infiltrations will result on diffusion; the infiltration of influences from one culture to another culture. In explaining how the diffusion or how the infiltration of the influences happens, Peter Worsly gives an example of how Tamil people in Sri Langka are inspired by the struggle of Palestinian people before the rise of Tamil Eleam movement. From Epstein and Eriksen above, we can compose a main idea: as a product of social change, ethnicity and interethnic relation are certainty. Ethnicity is not a natural phonomenon, but it is more as a from of cultural concept. In other side, there is a social difference which gives more stress on the meaning of ethnicity; when cultural difference (in language, religion, etc.) collides with class or access difference, the meaning of ethnicity becomes sharper.

The highest educational level in seven interior sub district such as Sebangki in Landak District is only up to SMP (Junior High School) and Madrasah (Islamic School). The condition of most school is teriblle. To go to school, students use small rowing boats. Teaching-learning activities can not be done regularly, especially in rainy season, when there is flood.

The low education level makes the ability in reasoning or filtering many informations from outside is weak. Whereas the information is needed and it may determine the making of a policy. in this case, a penetration in education is needed to be made, that is an alternative education, enlarging the reaching ability of a village library, giving opportunity to village youths to join cources in other places, custom education for multiethnic community. Last time, there were custom laws that could manage common life, so that everithing could run well and life suistainabilty, individually as well as in group was protected.”Principally, custom consists of guide and value which were acknowledged and maintained together; leadership, regulation in social association, division in economic opportunity, prosperity service for the members, and religious guide which were expressed in various customary ceremonies”. (Atok, 2002). In everyday life, parents taught teenagers how to enter social life and value guide in phases (through initiation and education in families, etc.) At the beginning of 1980, when industry revolution began to enter Indonesia, people’s life was widely influenced by information technology in the forms of television, internet, newspapers, magazines, etc. With the rapid change like this, it seemed that children and teenagers lost many kinds of life guide because there were so many influences and offers added by the increasing of means of communication.

They obviously seemed weak, for example in dealing with “social sickness” such as gambling, alcoholic drinking, dirty dance entertainment, armed robbery, and motorcycle holdup. Because of violence actions shown off through means of communication and information, children and teenagers belived that conflict could only be settled by using violence actions. It is obvious that the rapid change has created rense situation in the community life, since the people are not ready, or they have not been prepared to be ready to face the change that happens very quickly. Concerning the interethnic relation, there has not been found out a “new custom” (value guide) acknowledged and maintained together by the multiethnic people who have contributed something for the growth of peace culture wich is still weak.

Learning from conflict potency
Conflict is a part of social dynamics wich usually happens in every part of social interaction in everyday association structure of society (Johanson, 1989). Conflict my have a role as a trigger of process toward the creation of social balance. Verger (1985) writes that through the process of bargaining, conflict can help create new order in social interaction based on common agreement or in democratic way. Even if the conflict can be managed to certain limit, it can also be used as connecting tool of nationalizing social life.

Stereotyped opinion of other Ethnic Groups Towards Madurese Ethnic Group and Vice Versa

Madurese according to Dayak people
According to Dayak people Madurese people have the following characteristics:
rough, easily offended, unable to accept defeat; always carry weapon (sharp knives), in any effort always defend friends, although they are wrong; apt to use violence action in solving problems. They always show bad attitude such as: easily get married and easily device, easily break common agreement; apt to steal others’ possession such as vegetables, fruits, livestock, and other things. They get angry when their widows marry (or go out with) men from other ethnic groups; solving little problem by murdering their opponents; monopolizing certain works such as breaking stones for making roads or buildings; ticket scalpers in bus stations, taxi drivers, motorcycle transporting service by forcing the passengers.

Madurese people according to Malay people
It is almost the same as Dayaks’ opinion towards Madurese. Besides the mentioned stereotype, Malay people consider Madurese as dirty people (as can be seen in their dirty living places); they like to gamble (cock fighting); Madurese women like to make love affair with other men (they are unfaithful to their husbands or boyfriends).

Malay people according to Madurese
Based on the interview with several people in relocation place of refugees of Sambas ethnic conflict in January 2004. Madurese people considered Malay people as having the following characteristicts: can be trusted, tough on principle, friendly and courageous. They are also considered as not diligent, not persevering, lazy, wasteful, cowardly, fainthearted (They are symolized with “kerupuk” / chips)

Dayak people according to Madurese
Madurese people consider Dayaks as backwards, lazy, unfriendly, rude, apt to fight, like to be drunk, emotional, conceited, fainhearted, and do not bear a grudge. It is obvious that not all members of ethnic group have negative opinion toward other ethnic groups. As the opinion of Madurese people about Malays, Dayaks, and Chinese, likewise the opinion of Malays, Dayaks, and Chinese about Madurese. A number of respondents show that Madurese people who live together in the same community with Malay and Dayaks people are considered good enough. In Sebangki sub district, for example, Madurese people always speak Dayak or Malay dialects when they meet these people. On the other hand, Dayak and Malay people speak Madurese dialect when they are in Madurese houses or Madurese community. All of them, Malays, Dayaks and Madurese as well, are obidient to their village heads. They are willing to do common work together to clean Sambih river and to repair the road and bridges between their villages. The quality of good condition like this has to be developed and to be made a learning model for other multiethnic communities in other places

Villages are important basis of life in West Kalimantan. In the villages people from multiethnic groups live together, making social interaction positively in practicing ethnic peace. Based on this condition it is necessary to disseminate the comprehensive and true information about these phenomena, so that the basis of ethnic peace in West Kalimantan gets stronger from time to time.
As we know, there are 4 main ethnic groups in West Kalimantan: Dayak, Malay, Chinese and Madurese. The first two groups belong to native-majority peoples, while the two others are minority-migrants. Since the colonialism era up till now, all groups have been involving in fighting over the domination in economic, political and socio-cultural access in the area which relatively does not have much natural resources. In other words, their relationship, since last time, has tended to be incompatible. The modern states-started from (colonial) Dutch and Japan, up to Indonesia-directly or indirectly, tended to let the incompatible relationship exist even exploited it for their own benefits. Since the colonial era, all the ethnic groups have ever clashed with each other. And in the reformation era, again they fight in cultural, institutional and structural war.
It does not mean that there is not any good relationship among the ethnic groups. The good relationship in fact has not changed significantly although sometimes there is a tension due to the competition in economic, political and socio-cultural fields. The relationship does not change much, when, for instance, there is one or some of the ethnic groups’ member(s)is/are murdered by the members of other ethnic groups. From this point of view, the ethnic violenee is something that happens rarely and unpredictable
During the year of 1967, the Dayak and Chinese people were still in good relationship, atthongh there happened small clashes among them particnlarly those concering economic competition. But in political fileld, the Dayaks did not consider the Chinese people as their competiors who caused the fall of and / or made the fall of some Dayaks from their strategic position in the government administration. In fact, the Dayaks considered the good relationship between the Dayaks and the Chinese people deteriovated at the beginning of september 1967. A group of people kidnapped and murdered 9 Dayak people from Tahum village. It was believed that the doers were the members of PGRS/Paraku (Comumunist guerrilla of Nort Kalimantan/ Serawak) who were Chinese people. A month later, at the middle of October 1967, again a Dayak was killed in Bengkayang, and it was also (believed) done by the Chinese.
After the statement of the former Dayak Governor through the radio, groups of Dayak people began to expel Chinese people from the hinterland area along the border of the country. Formerly, there was not any bloodshed in the expulsion movement, but the army’s increasing pressure on the Dayaks, made it a terrible riot that caused a lot of bloodshed. It was called euphemistically demonstration and went on for about 2 months in which the Dayaks managed to expell 55.000 chinese people, caused 2000 deaths, and seized possessions and lands of the Chinese people. After living in poverty and misery for years as refugees, the Chinese people started their lives in urban areas or along the roadsides connecting big cities such as Sambas-Singkawang-Mempawah-Pontianak.
The Dayaks and Madurese do have an incompatible relationship in economic field. In the 1967 riot, the Madurese people also took over the Chinese’s lands, which, the Dayaks thought, belonged to them. The Dayaks also see the Madurese people tend to do crime easily. However, the conflict that potentially happen is between the Malays and the Dayaks. The Dayaks think that the Malays have been responsible for the poverty and humility suffered by the Dayaks since the colonial era till New Order era. Since 1994 the Dayaks and the Malays have a bad political relationship.
When there was an increasing tense between the two majority groups, the Dayak, however attacked the Madurese people. It was triggered by the fight between some youths in Sanggau Ledo. Then several Dayak youths did the reactive action in Bengkayang by burning down the house belonging to Madurese people. The casualty was small, but at the end of January 1997, the violence action increased. It got wider into Landak and Sanggau Regencies. At least 1000 people were killed (mostly Madurese people), and 20.000 Madurese fleed to Singkawang, Mempawah and Pontianak. Different from the former riots, the army did not engineer it this time, However, in the efforts to put it out, the army took side with he Madurese.
The violence riot between the Malay and Madurese people was triggered by a cruel treatment on a Madurese captured thief in Desa Parit Setia that made the neighbours of the victim took revenge on the doers in 19 January 1999, on the Hari Raya Idul Fitri. This action also provoked Sambas Malays, who then made an ethnic cleansing toward all Madurese people in Sambas district. The riot happened from February to March 1999, and at least 1000 Madurese people were killed, 65 thousands others had to flee to Singkawang and Pontianak. Like the previous riots 2 years before, this riot was not engineered by the army and the police, but they were involved indirectly.
Despite the ethnic violence between the two ethnic groups, the other ethnic groups kept maintaining their good relationship. While the action happened in Sambas, Bengkayang, Landak, and Sanggau, the Chinese people in Singkawang, Pontianak, Kapuas Hulu and other places still have good relationship with the Dayaks and other groups including Malay and Madurese. Even they helped each other. After the riot was over, all ethnic groups communicated among themselves as before.
The Dayaks allowed the Madurese to visit Bengkayang and Sanggau, some of them even remained staying there and could own some land. Athough Sambas Malays did not allow the Madurese to come back and stay in Sambas district, they acknowledged the land ownership of the Madurese and kept maining friendly contacl among them.
There are similarities among the ethnic conflicts from the point of view of time, location and scale. Firsly, the riots usually happened at the end of the year or the begining of the year, in which the important change of political situation happened and around religious-day celebration and they happened in 2 to 3 months time. Secondly, they happened in restricted area, in some distric areas, never in the whole province. Thirdly, they always caused a lot of casualties in terms of materials, human lives and refugees. The facts show that the riots were triggered by the crime action done by members of one ethnic group toward another one.
The three ethnic-violence conflicts in West Kalimantan started from the crime action that later proliferated into collective violence action organized by a group of actors for the sake of a certain ethnic group’s interest. In the conflict every member of the ethnic group participated in the violence action stoward the members of another “enemy” group. Therefore, the casualties were usually very big, although an action was done selectively; it means that the violence action was only done to the members of a certain group which was considered enemy at that time. This make the ethnic violence different from other kinds of riot such as “mass judgement” gang fights, and other collective-violence actions.
Since long time ago, the ethnic violence kept happening among Dayak, Malay, Chinese and Madurese ethnic groups triggered by violence action done by any member of one group toward any member of the others. There happened in every 7 previous years. However, one conflict never direclly continued to another ethnic conflict.
Hereby, as the examples, we list the conflicts happened from 1999 till 2007 among the members of the Chinese, Malay, Dayak, and Madurese ethnic groups. On December 1999, hundreds of Malays attacked several Dayaks in a bus company in Pontianak caused 7 wounded, and I dead in Dayak’s side, while 2 week earlier the conflict between these same groups happened. But these conflicts did not increase into a wide and big ethnic conflict. On October 2000, the conflict due to traffic accident made hundreds of Malays attack the Madurese, While on July 2001 hundreds of Malays attaked Madurese Refugee camps, after the murder of a Malay child. In 2002 there was a tension in Dayak-Malay relationship due to the election of the governor of the province. During that time some accidents happened among the members of the ethnic groups, but fortunately they did not spread into a wide conflict or to the whole province area. Along 2005-2006, the election of the local heads happened in 8 Reqency areas that clearly used ethnic issues and symbols as the political commodities. However the elections happened peacefully. The conflict in Sanggau Ledo and Capkala between the Dayaks and transmigration people concerning land ownership on February 2007 did not spread widely but decreased quickly.
West Kalimantan Province is Considered as an area that is very affected to conflicts, as stated by Human Right Watch (in Sudagung, 2001: XXIII). There are three argumentations for clarifying the background of the conflicts. They are:
(1) The differenee in culture between the two quarelling ethnic groups.
(2) The marginalization argument, that is the marginalization toward the local people, Dayak ethnic group, as the result of the development policy of the goverment that inflicted various kinds of loss upon the local people. This becomes the source of resistance of the local people toward anything from outside.
(3) The political manipulation argument, that is, although cultural, social and ecomonic factors have the role, they did not strong enough to prevent ethnic conflicts in a big scale.

The statements above describe that the cause of the conflict is not only one. So the ethnicity problems of Madurese people (e.g. strereotype) is only a small element of complexities of the communal conflicts in West Kalimantan. These phenomena are the conflict potentials that should be paid attention to, in order that the ethic conflict will not happen and disturb the programs of the people’s development. Because, the failure of development program is usually caused by long conflicts among ethnic groups. (Koentjaraningrat, 1993:36; Lauer, :1993:291-292)
As we know, the relationship between Dayak and Madurese groups is not very good and full of negative perception. There is prejudice in the interaction. A social capital to interact positively has gone. The causes are, among others, the political setting and wrong development patern in New Order era, that make the structure of social building brittle. (Rozy: 2003, 91). Discriminative treatment done by the government has given negative impact on the social relationship in the society. The political policy of the New Order really contributed to the destruction of social relationship and moreover, it put out the crcativity and initiative of the local people to build social relation.
Based on his research on spontaneous Migration of Madurese Ethnic Group to West Kalimantan, Sudagung (2001: 139) states that the adaptation of Madurese ethnic group to Dayak ethnic group is not successful because of, among others, (1) The characteristics of the two group generally do not differ very much; both have strong ethnicity feeling and group solidarity; (2) Madurese people are easily suspicious and bear grudge, although they have good characteristics such as economical and like to save money; (3) Differences in culture and religion; (4) being almost the same in economic level, makes the two groups compete in economic fields; (5) the use of bad Indonesian language in their interaction, concerning harsh dialects or intonation as the refleetion of hard personality, often causes mesanderstanding between the two groups. Giring (2004: 151) in his research about the Madurese in the eyes of the Dayaks in Salatiga Village, Pontianak Regency, finds out that the interaction between the Madurese and the Dayaks in the village is based on the image relating to the meaning and value system held by Dayak Kanayatn in peceiving the existence of the Madurese in the village.
The research done by Shonhadji (2001: 244-247) in Durian village, Sungai Ambawang sub-district, Pontianak Regency about the social interaction among various ethnic groups living in the village, finds out that the interaction among the various groups runs well because the social regulations functions well in managing social interaction along their history supported by local leadership factor. While Yulianus in his research about Dayak and Madurese relation in Retok village (in Atok, 2005: 20) finds out that the common life between Dayak and Madurese people runs well in the village (Retok village, Kuala Mandor B sub-district, Pontianak Regency). It is determined by strong charisma of the local leaders in the village.
Another research done by Kristianus (2006) in several villages in Subangki sub-district shows that the numbers of multi-ethnic communities in the sub-district area have big contribution in creating peace in the village. The learning point from this sub-district is that the ability of the people to manage the conflict so that the conflict does not become collective conflict among ethnic communities in this area. Many sides take part in managing the conflict. Particularly the study tries to examine the role of social institutions and social network in connection with the conflict management in this sub-district area.
From the researches we can conclude that the interation among various ethnic groups in West Kalimantan runs badly because of ethnic political interest, cultural clashes and the prejudice based on the negative stereotype. It is worsened by the practice of local autonomy, in which the local people are motivated to marginalize the migrants. However, in micro scale on the village levels like in Subangki sub-district, Retok and Durian villages, the interaction is much better and the people can live together harmoniously. The portrait of life in micro scale like this will be promoted as the important stories from the villages and then will be popularized and used as models to build peace in West Kalimantan.

This is the program that will be implemented as the effort to build agenda together with the people in promoting tolerance and peace through documentation and promoting of the ethnic peace basis and empowerment of people’s capacity in doing reconciliation and peace in West Kalimantan.

We hope that the basic documentation of ethnic groups in West Kalimantan can contribute something for early conflik prevention and preventing violence action that involve all ethnic groups in West Kalimantan. Besides, the knots of multi-ethnic network will give contribution to the building of harmonious ethnic relation. Then the people, by using local wisdom they know, can make a mechanism for settling the conflict. (conflic resalution mechanism) by fully and commonly Understanding about the differences which still have basic similarities.We wait supporting yours, thanks.


1. Arts, Henry, 1992, “Ulu' Banua, A Longhouse of the Taman-Daya” dalam Borneo Research Bulletin, vol. 24,
2. Hendarta Suta Purwana, Bambang, 2003, Konflik antar Komunitas Etnis di Sambas 1999, Suatu Tinjauan Sosial Budaya, Romeo Grafika Pontianak
3. Coward, Harold, 1980, Pluralisme, Tantangan bagi Agama-agama, Kanisius cetakan pertama
4. Davidson, Jamie S. dan Kammen, Douglas, 2002, “Indonesia’s Unknown War and the Lineages of Violence in West Kalimantan” Indonesia 73 (April 2002)
5. Djajadi, Iqbal, 2003, “Transformasi Konflik di Kalimantan Barat: Peralihan dari Tindak Pidana Lintas-Etnik menuju Kekerasan Etnik, dan Ketiadaan Peralihan Tindak Pidana Lintas-Etnik” Presentasi Seminar Sehari Membangun Perdamaian di Kalimantan Barat, 7 Juli 2003.
6. Dove, Michael R. and Kammen, Danieal M., 1997 "The Epistemology of Sustainable Resource Use: Managing Forest Products, Swiddens, and High Yielding Variety Crops" dalam Human Organization, Vol. 56 No. 1
7. Dove, Michael R., 1998, "Living Rubber, Dead Land, and Persisting System in Borneo Indigenous Representations of Sustainability"dalam Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia and Oceania
8. Dove, Michael R., 1999, "Forest Augury in Borneo: Indigenous Environmental Knowledge --about Limits to Knowledge of the Environment" dalam In Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, D. Posey, Ed, pp. 376 - 380, London: Intermediate Technology Publications, for United Nations Environment Programme
9. Elsam, LBBT, 1997, Konvensi ILO 1969
10. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, 1991, “The Cultural Context of Ethnic Differences”, Man vol. 26 no. 1
11. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, 1993 (a), Ethnicity and Nationalism, Pluto Press, London
12. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, 1993, (b) “The Epistemological Status of the Concept of Ethnicity”
13. Conference paper, Amsterdam (“The Anthropology of Ethnicity”), December 1993, Published in Anthropological Notebooks (Ljubljana, Slovenia) in 1996
14. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, 1992, Us and Them in the Modern Society, Scandinavian University Press,
15. Harris, Marvin, 1987, Cultural Anthropology, Harper and Row, Publisher, New York
16. Hartoko, Dick, 1986, Kamus Populer Filsafat, CV Rajawali, Jakarta
17. Huntington, Samuel P., 1993, "The Clash of Civilization?" dalam FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Volume 72 No. 3 Summer 1993
18. King, Victor T, 1993, The Peoples of Borneo, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK
19. Kompas, Minggu 17 November 2002, hal 4"Lebih Jauh dengan Professor Johan Galtung"
20. Lontaan, J. U., 1975 Sejarah Hukum-hukum Adat dan Adat Istiadat Kalimantan Barat, Pemda Kalbar
21. Lubis, Mohtar, 1991, Indonesia, Land under the Rainbow, Oxford University Press, (1987), second impression
22. Marsana Windhu, I., Kekuasaan & Kekerasan Menurut Johan Galtung, Penerbit Kanisius, 1992
23. Mcinnis, Donna J., "An Interview with Johan Galtung", Soka University, 1996
24. Plog, Fred, et al, 1980, Anthropology, Decision, Adaptation, and Evolution, Alfred A. Knopf, New York
25. Poespowardojo, Soerjanto dan Bertens, K, 1983 Sekitar Manusia, Bunga Rampai tentang Filsafat Manusia, PT Gramedia, Jakarta
26. Soekmono, Dr. R., Sejarah Kebudayaan Indonesia1, Kanisius (1973), cetakan ke 23
27. Soekmono, Dr. R., Sejarah Kebudayaan Indonesia2, Kanisius (1973), cetakan ke 23
28. Sukisman, Marius, 2002, " Asal-usul Binua Salako Sampayang", Dokumentasi Binua Salako Sampayang
29. Takdir, Simon, 2003, “Suku Dayak Salako” (unpublished)
30. FM.Nomen, Majalah Kalimantan Review No. 53/2000
31. Atok, Kristianus, Membangun Perdamaian dan Relasi Antar Etnik di Kalimantan Barat, YPB, 2001.
32. Pontius, Upaya-Upaya Masyarakat Membangun Kehidupan Plural di Kabupaten Bengkayang, Karamigi, 2002.
33. Laporan Pemetaan Partisipatif Kampung Tarok, YPB, 2001
34. Rekaman Proses Kegiatan PRA Site Tarok, YPB, April 2002.

Pontianak, West Borneo Indonesia, March 2008
Writer: Chairman of Palma Institute Pontianak

0 komentar:

Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes | JCpenney Printable Coupons