As an Indian, this headline intrigued me to draw a click. Then I realized that the article was about Native Americans and this usage, as always, filled me with a mild rage for a few seconds. Is it really that hard to just use a non-confusing term for native americans in written language now that it's clear that India is somewhere else on the globe altogether?
The simple answer is no. The longer answer is yes, but ... it would confuse more people that it would help. When you start throwing around terms like aboriginal X or native X, you're getting somewhere re: clarity. However, when the term is modifying an ambiguous locator like "American" it makes it worse again. To United States citizens, "American" means them, but (I can't speak for Canadians, not ever having had this conversation with any) all my friends in Brazil, Chile and Mexico consider themselves American, too, and they are.
"Indian" to mean indigenous United States tribes is a cop out but it is by far the simplest way for writers to refer to these diverse groups without having to get deep into technical explanations.
p.s. Besides, it isn't our fault the Europeans were shitty navigators. :)
"The longer answer is yes, but ... it would confuse more people that it would help."
Can you describe a scenario where replacing the word "Indian" with "Native-American" in the headline of this article will confuse more people than the original version? None of what you said to support your assertion seems to make that case.
"Native Americans", from one point of view, is just as wrong of a term, since the literal meaning of the individual words suggest that it means people that were born in America, which is a very different group than American Indians.
"Native American" is a well understood term in everyday and (especially) journalistic writing. There's literally no scenario where the headline (and the article) itself will not gain in clarity by replacing the term Indian with "Native American".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VMY8X9rU8