If I am understanding your argument correctly, it is that the wave of highly publicized acts of terrorism in the early 2000s, combined with cultural isolation between Han Chinese and Uyghurs, led to the mass internment program?
A short article I read on the issue[0] quotes David Kaplan as saying, “The repression of the Turkic Uyghur Muslim community in western China…is a key part of Beijing’s new imperial policy,” and that the Belt and Road Initiative “requires the complete subjugation of the Uyghur population”. (Sadly, I don't know what the Belt and Road Initiative is, either.)
Is this also consistent with your views?
If you buy into the view that all Uyghurs are potential terrorists, then having an important trade route go directly through their territory would certainly make it into a juicy target for terrorist attacks. That said, even then there's no need to depopulate the entire province, which is almost as large as Alaska (though much of it is desert). Security corridors a few kilometers wide should be enough for even the most paranoid.
I don't think there's a fully rational explanation of the treatment that Uyghurs receive in terms of some kind of objective the Chinese government wants to achieve. My personal best guess is that someone high up in the hierarchy is on a power trip and the rest of the leadership doesn't care enough to stop them.
> While the separation of inmates into categories was merely a tactical-organisatory measure for the the purpose of administration of the camps, the arbitrariness of committal demonstrates the essential principle of the institution as such. The existance of a political opposition is just a pretext for the concentration camp system, and its purpose is not achieved when the population more or less voluntarily conforms as consequence of the most monstrous deterrence, that is, to give up its political rights. The arbitrariness has the purpose to deprive those under the totalitarian regime of all their rights as citizens, which finally become as outlawed [vogelfrei] in their own country as otherwise only the stateless and homeless. The deprivation of humans of their rights, the killing of the juridical person in them is just a precondition of their being totally controlled, for which even voluntary agreement is a hindrance [0]. And this is not just the case for special categories of criminals, political enemies, Jews, on which it was tested first, but for every citizen of a totalitarian country.
> [0] [Related to that is the fact that all propaganda and ["Weltanschauungslehre"] was expressly forbidden in the camps. (also see Himmler, "Wesen und Aufgabe der SS und der Polizei"). And together with this in turn it has to be considered that that teaching and propaganda was also not allowed for the guarding elite formations; their Weltanschauung was not to be "teached", but "exercized" (see Robert Ley)]
-- Hannah Arendt
And hey, everybody in a (totalitarian) hierarchy is on a power trip. Even shining boots at low ranks with no intent to rise is still more being part of that power trip than not. I think being powerful (in the alienated, destructive sense of the word) and "just following orders" (or "just doing business") are all great ways for people to avoid actually living and facing themselves, they're different sides of the same coin.
I'm glad you liked the post.