Mercantilism was the dominant economic paradigm of its era and a critical influence in shaping American colonization. Ultimately, mercantilist theory tended to view economics as a zero-sum game. Its advocates argued for governmental regulation of the economy. They argued that by controlling its imports and exports, a country could maximize its wealth (while denying that wealth to rival powers).
From a mercantilist mindset, the colonies were seen primarily as a means to an end (existing for the benefit of the mother country). At this point, I think you should recognize that there was likely a kind of tension at play between political identity and economic self-interest. Remember, the colonists tended to view themselves as English citizens. With that in mind, the idea that their own interests should be aligned with England's interests might not have been quite so unpopular as this question would assume (especially in periods of conflict or war). However, despite these political allegiances, mercantilism remained a constraint on their economic freedom and detracted from their profits. Even so, for much of colonial history, enforcement of these mercantile laws remained largely lax, and smuggling was rampant within the colonies.
After the French and Indian War, the British government became much more interventionist than it had previously been and began to more stringently enforce these mercantile laws and to more stringently prosecute colonial smuggling. I would say that this change in policy influenced a change in attitudes, with the colonists becoming increasingly hostile as a result.