Until now, the protests in 1774 of ‘consumers who refused to consume’ have been interpreted as ways colonists (especially women) who were not normally engaged in politics could be political. The book re-reads these protests instead as the Patriot struggle to politicise consumption. “When ‘tea parties’ were held nearly a year after the Boston Tea Party, there was still tea to destroy,” noted Professor Fichter. “The prevalence of tea advertising in 1774 suggests efforts to get colonists to join the boycott were only partially successful. Boycotts are often ineffective and collapse, as this one did. So, it wasn’t a way to see the broad American public opposing Parliament. It was a way to see the broad American public ignoring Parliament and Congress.”
